Valve's Steam Machines Are More About Safeguarding PCs Than Killing Consoles

An anonymous reader writes "CES has come and gone, and we've gotten a chance to see many different models of Valve's Steam Machines. They're being marketed as a device for a living room, and people are wondering if they'll be able to compete with the Big-3 console manufacturers. But this article argues that Valve isn't going after the consoles — instead, Steam Machines are part of a long-term plan to keep the PC gaming industry healthy. Quoting: 'Over the years, Valve has gone from simply evangelizing the PC platform — it once flew journalists in from around the world pretty much just to tell them it was great — to actively protecting it, and what we're seeing now is just the beginning of that push. Take SteamOS. To you and me, it's a direct interface for Steam based on Linux that currently has poor software support. To Valve, though, it's a first step in levering development, publishing, gameplay and community away from their reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term. ... As for Steam Machines, they are a beachhead, not an atom bomb. They are meant to sell modestly. ... The answer is that Valve is thinking in decades, not console generations.'"

Comments

What's the difference?

[DaTrueDave]

Isn't keeping the PC game industry healthy by putting SteamBoxes in the living room the same thing as a console-killer?

The more open platforms available, the better.

I just need Steam to create a Plex app on Steam and I'm all in.

Re:What's the difference?

[master5o1]

SteamOS is Debian, so if there is something for Debian that sorts out Plex.

Re:What's the difference?

[houstonbofh]

I just need Steam to create a Plex app on Steam and I'm all in.

Here you go. https://forums.plex.tv/index.php/topic/87253-linux-builds/ Feel free to send me money if you want. :)

Re:What's the difference?

[Seumas]

That is never going to happen. Consoles are commodity hardware *at launch* with the specific target of playing games on one platform in one way. With PCs, you've got video cards that cost a couple hundred dollars more than both the XB1 and PS4 *combined*.

A four and five star restaurant will never compete with McDonald's on price. What they *can* compete on is not serving you fetid shit in a paper wrapper. That requires that people give a damn. If people are just fine scarfing down a shitty box of styrofoam chicken nuggets, then you're screwed. It also requires that people make quality products for it. So many PC games are just shitty ports of console games, hindered by limitations of targeting consoles and leaving PCs as an afterthought. Then, you're crippled by trying to operate a four or five star restaurant when you're being supplied the same shitty ingredients as McDonald's.

Re:What's the difference?

[Nerdfest]

The point of the SteamBox and keeping things open is that Valve sees where Microsoft is heading with Windows 8 and beyond. They're heading for Apple/console model for Windows where they get full approval of all software and a significant cut of all sales. It's not good for consumers and it's not good for Valve. I'm a little surprised more software companies are not joining them in launching non-game software for them, but they may be more focused on the tablet market.

Re:What's the difference?

[master5o1]

We're talking about Steam boxes, which run SteamOS, which is Debian based and therefore can run XBMC.

There is a launcher from XBMC that will open Steam in Big Picture Mode.

Re:What's the difference?

[Azeroth48]

serviio has a linux release and its free... http://serviio.org/buy-pro/10-uncategorised/60-free-vs-pro - Daemon Scripts: http://forum.serviio.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=71

Re:What's the difference?

[Nerdfest]

From what I've read, you can install any software you want on the SteamBox, or even run the OS on your own hardware. It's not the same model as consoles, iOS, or what Microsoft is heading for. It's the same model as Linux, Android, and what traditional Windows is.

Re: What's the difference?

[houstonbofh]

Steambox is not a PC.

You want to look at that again? It is EXACTLY a PC. You can actually take any PC with a decent graphics card and install the software yourself! The controller is not even required, but I would want one. It is just not Windows. And while Steam does have DRM, the OS does not, unlike Windows. Also, no artificial limitations, like my desktop that has 24gig of ram under Linux, but Windows only sees 16... Yes, I know why... Now. After I installed it.

Re:What's the difference?

[tlhIngan]

Isn't keeping the PC game industry healthy by putting SteamBoxes in the living room the same thing as a console-killer?

The problem is, if you want to define a SteamBox as a console, the PC industry is done for.

Because the cheapest one is $500. And the CES announcements show them going to $1300. Tell me how many "cheaper games" you have to buy to justify the $800 premium over an Xbone? (Especially since well, both PSN and Xbox Live also run sales).

And how long are they going to last? I mean, the Xbone and PS4 are going to probably last at least 5 years (the past gen PS3 and Xbox360 are pushing 7 and 8 years). Will today's $500 SteamBox last 5 years? Or are PC developers going to say 2 years from now "Today's steambox is super cool, let's target it!" and leave everyone who bought a $500 SteamBox in the dust?

And nevermind the Tier 1 PC maker who integrates it all on a motherboard and releases it for $400, screwing over everyone who paid $500. If you're going to subject your console to wild price differentials and all that, there better be a good reason other than technical gobbledegook. Titan this, 386 that 6970 over there, foobarbaz. Sorry, people will see "SteamBox" and expect them to work alike. They're buying a console, not a PC.

If Valve plays this wrong, PC developers might need to support Intel 5000 graphics (Haswell) for the next 5+ years running at 1080p because those were the cheapest.

If Valve wants these as gaming PCs, they need to be put near the PCs side. Unfortunately, the way they're positioned now, they're competing against consoles. And outside the big three, the only console maker to have some success is... Apple (more inadvertently than anything). Even the heavily hyped Ouya is struggling.

Re:What's the difference?

[gerddie]

You are completely disingenuous. As a practical matter, it will not be simple to "sideload" 3rd party software on a Steambox. It will practically impossible for another store to compete on this platform.

Nonsense: SteamBox is a computer with Debian + Steam + some specific drivers and some tweaking. Everything that is available for Debian can be directly installed on SteamOS.

Re:What's the difference?

[spire3661]

Did it ever occur to you that any PC maker could commission boxes just like MS and Sony did ? The PS4 is just a fancy PC that costs $380 to build. You think they are the only ones capable of doing that?

Re:What's the difference?

[deviated_prevert]

Smart TVs will kill consoles eventually.

Hurrah the first person to see the forest for the trees.

Last time I looked TV wasn't doing much better than the trees. I hear radio and newspapers are a force to be reckoned with though.

I think you are missing the point. The TV is in the process of morphing into a fully internet capable device. And if the lines of "SMART TV" sitting in all the stores and selling as replacements for highdef and regular mpeg digital only tvs are not an indication of the fact that people are actually starting to use them for both purposes then I guess Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, LG are all out to lunch when they push internet capable big screen devices for the living room.

Sure some jerk modded me down as flame bait but that is the nature of mods that have a political agenda and do not see past their nose when it comes to technology.

AND THIS IS NOT A FLAME it is a simple logical argument based upon observation. Which IM not so Humble Opinion is what a real discussion is all about. The flames here seem to come from the fan boys that go out of their way to defend something which is vulnerable to new technologies and that something is companies that try to push products like XBOXs and Apple tv boxes as being a reasonable media device.

The whole point is low power high computation processor tech is making it so the TV can morph into something which has greater capabilities than just a dumb digital receiver. And Samsung especially sees the potential in uniting their tablets, cameras, phones with their TVs to really increase the potential user friendliness of Smart TVs. In fact they are leaving most other companies in the dust in regards to integration of devices.

LG and Sony are starting to catch on and no doubt they will catch up. But as long as Apple and Microsoft can't see the forest for the trees and relies upon add on boxes for digital display they will be left in the dust.

Watch out as Samsung starts to release some killer games for their latest super power smart tvs because it will shock the shit out of the gaming industry. The conclusion here is gaming industry is vulnerable including "consoles" like the Xbox and PlayStation because they are a non portable add on that will become redundant.

If someone has a logical argument with good counter points then type away but twitter like jabs are for kids, arguing is an essential part of discourse and I respect those who have contrary opinions provided they are not just pokes and jabs. BTW I was not the anon coward who I first responded to but I do agree with what he postulated and simply elaborated on the topic. YOU HAVE THE MIC AND THE FLOOR.

Re:a atom bomb

[ArcadeMan]

It also sucks at running your spell checker.

Good

[ArcadeMan]

I'm all for building my own gaming box, especially if it removes Microsoft from the picture.

Explain

[aaronb1138]

This quote makes zero sense:
"...reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term."

Really, because my experience with Linux and backwards / forwards support for both software and hardware has been vastly worse than Windows from XP through 8. Sure before XP, Windows 9x was terrible, but are we really going to keep basing derp derp FUD on a 5 year window of hard lessons from nearly 15 years ago?

Can we just fess up and admit that SteamOS is an effort predicated on a personal beef Gabe Newell has with Microsoft and especially the fact that Windows 8 included it's own store and that store was not Steam. The story is well documented and the whole industry is going to blow a lot of money on development just to satisfy one man's ego.

Re:Explain

[Escogido]

Whatever his true motivation is, it makes sense from a business standpoint. Microsoft would love to become for Windows what Apple is for OS X / iOS, and Valve doesn't want that - it's understandable. From a certain angle, Steam machines are not unlike Google+: there are some diehard fans that would kill for it, many go like "why do we need another [social network / console platform]?" and the company behind it is big enough and has enough mindshare that the product is guaranteed to have some visibility even if it is not quite on par with what the rest of the market has to offer, and eventually gain enough of a market share to make sense, even with all backwards / forwards support issues you pointed out. And for consumers more competition is always good, so sure why not.

Re:Explain

[neuro88]

This quote makes zero sense: "...reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term." Really, because my experience with Linux and backwards / forwards support for both software and hardware has been vastly worse than Windows from XP through 8. Sure before XP, Windows 9x was terrible, but are we really going to keep basing derp derp FUD on a 5 year window of hard lessons from nearly 15 years ago? Can we just fess up and admit that SteamOS is an effort predicated on a personal beef Gabe Newell has with Microsoft and especially the fact that Windows 8 included it's own store and that store was not Steam. The story is well documented and the whole industry is going to blow a lot of money on development just to satisfy one man's ego.

Linux supports older hardware than windows 7 and 8, no question. Regarding the software... You definitely have a point there. Almost. The Linux kernel itself actually has backwards compatibility for userspace software going back quite a bit. It's mostly glibc that breaks this. If it isn't happening already, it will eventually. You'll be downloading games from that simply ship with their own libraries. I believe a lot of Windows software works this way.

You can actually get a lot of old loki games to run in linux by installing older versions of various libraries. Although, you do encounter some issues. For example, Simcity 3000 won't give you sound since it wants to use esd (which hasn't seen use in years), but the game will otherwise run. This takes some work to setup, but if the games on steam do this for you, it's a non-issue.

I doubt it

[koan]

This + tablets = even lower PC sales.

Oh, well

[Mephistro]

You can build your own steam machine for peanuts, if you are technically inclined. If you aren't, you can request the help from a friend, and if you can't/don't want to do that, you can still buy a suitable PC an add SteamOS on top. If you're too lazy even for that and have money to expend, you can purchase one of these pretty Steam machines. At the very least you'll be free from the Windows tax and still you'll end up with a full fledged PC with a serious OS (Linux) that can run lots and lots of 'serious apps' + a growing number of games. I think Valve has hit the nail in the head with this one. Kudos to them.

Re:Oh, well

[schnell]

it simply isn't going to work well if you try to run it in an environment that absolutely needs to be 100% compatible with Windows software and standards. However, this is true for Mac OSX too, and I don't ever see anyone saying "Mac OS is not a serious desktop OS".

I guess it depends on how you define "serious desktop OS." I don't think most people define it your way, e.g. "100% Windows compatible." I think most people define it as being explicitly supported "out of the box" by a critical mass of parts of the PC ecosystem:

• Major commercial software vendors
• Networking equipment, printer/scanners, and other accessory vendors
• Native commercial game ports/support
• Support from ISPs, cloud backup services, etc.

The reason is that most people who use computers - not most Slashdotters, but most people - want to buy things with which other important things will "just work." Geeks will seek out how they can make things work in unapproved configurations - and will find it great fun! - but the vast majority of computer users and even corporate IT departments will not.

So basically unless you can walk into a Best Buy or something and walk up and down the aisles of boxed software, games, peripherals, monitors, yadda yadda and see your OS listed under in the "Supported Systems" or "System Requirements" fine print on the boxes, then you are not a serious desktop OS for the mass market.

Your mileage may vary - I am just proposing a definition based on mass market usage. There are Slashdotters, I'm sure, who use Plan 9 every day and it is a "serious desktop OS" to them. But for the world at large, I think most people find a different definition.

Re:Oh, well

[Grishnakh]

I think most people define it as being explicitly supported "out of the box" by a critical mass of parts of the PC ecosystem:

No, a "serious desktop OS" is something that does the tasks you require of it. Everyone has different requirements.

Major commercial software vendors

There's tons of software that doesn't work on MacOS, including lots of enterprise software. So Macs aren't "serious desktops"?

Networking equipment, printer/scanners, and other accessory vendors

I don't know of any serious printers (not cheap POS Best Buy printers) that don't work in Linux, nor any network equipment.

Native commercial game ports/support

Why the hell is this important? How many large corporations give a shit about commercial game support for their office workers' desktop PCs?

Support from ISPs, cloud backup services, etc.

Again, not important if you're a corporation or government or any serious institution.

So basically unless you can walk into a Best Buy

No serious business gives two shits about anything sold in Best Buy. Corporate IT departments do not shop at Best Buy.

Your mileage may vary - I am just proposing a definition based on mass market usage

IT departments don't give a shit about mass market usage. They only care that the applications they use are supported by the platform.

You talk like someone who's never worked in a real job at any decent company before.

Re:Oh, well

[msobkow]

A PC with comparable hardware to a console is not that expensive. The problem is, when people say "gaming machine", it's usually a gaming fanatic who wants a 4K display and the graphics horsepower to drive it with all settings maximized. You don't get that with a console, and if you downgrade your components in a PC to a comparable level of performance with a console, you'll find PCs cost about as much as consoles do.

Re:Oh, well

[DJRumpy]

You have a few valid points as some of the GP's examples were a bit out there, and for some of your own points, you would be laughed out of your procurement department. Corporate IT environments care very much about who uses software. I don't know about your IT department, but ours has very strict standards about supportability, health of a company, number of customers and business strength, etc. Those things are key to investing heavily in a software or hardware platform. You don't want to drop millions on a product only to find the company has gone under and won't be supporting your purchase. There comes a point when an OS reaches enough market saturation that it is largely considered a viable alternative that has achieved it's own momentum. Linux simply hasn't gotten to that place yet. Does that make it an invalid choice? Certainly not, BUT it does make many corporate IT shops hesitate to invest heavily in it. We have Linux in our environment. Not a large one, and certainly not widely supported, but it's there.

I don't think the OP was stating it was ineffective or a bad choice, and your defensive post speaks to that, but rather it just hasn't achieved enough market saturation that it is largely considered a viable general use desktop for the masses. No more, no less. That speaks nothing to it's benefits, or it's drawbacks, and you should take such at face value, which is true enough. Linux is more of a specialty desktop. It can do what it does extremely well, but for most purposes, it would require a bit of customization that an OS with better market saturation would probably get out of the box. Not because it can't do those things, but because the vendors who create such products probably also took that market saturation into account when designing their products.

Re:a atom bomb

[Hognoxious]

Running a spell checker on Mr. Tard School's posts is like sticking a band aid on Marie Antoinette.

Let's be honest

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Let's be honest, here is one major advantage of a Steam Machine.

Teenagers and pre-teens rock at getting viruses, malware and such on a Windows computer. This is why everyone buys them tablets.

Windows is starting to be its own worst enemy, Windows 8 is terrible (and I have it on 2 machines) and Windows 7 --- while almost perfect --- at the hands of an inexperienced user the default settings aren't the best.

Typical users ARE NOT looking to tweak, break-in a system, uninstall crapware.

This is where the Steam Machines can excel --- bringing PC quality gaming to the masses without Windows update installing countless GB of mostly unwanted stuff at 3 AM. And Mac computers, while great, are not mainstream economical (I have 2 Macs and I love them. But they are pricey).

Consoles are a trade-off --- they offer gaming with training wheels (no mouse, can't offer bleeding edge graphics, overly sandboxed and limited from a developer perspective at times I would guess) --- SteamOS can offer PC quality gaming without the drawbacks of Windows maintenance/OEM crapwares.

Personal computer vs. appliance

[tepples]

IMHO, a computer primarily designed for gaming is a console.

So is a Wintendo a "console". Another definition of a "console" is a computer whose case and UI are designed for use with a TV as its display.

Though you might want to draw a line so that it's a console when the manufacturer spends extra effort to limit its computational abilities in order to make it cheaper. Which, IMHO, does not compute.

To me, a "personal computer" is a piece of computing hardware where the person who owns it controls what computing it performs. For example, a device running SteamOS (or other X11/Linux distributions), Windows, OS X, or Android is a personal computer. A device running operating system whose publisher has veto power over apps, such as Windows RT, Windows Phone, Apple iOS, Nintendo iOS (Wii, Wii U), Sony GameOS (PS3), Sony Orbis OS (PS4), is an "appliance".

PulseAudio can emulate ESD

[tepples]

For example, Simcity 3000 won't give you sound since it wants to use esd (which hasn't seen use in years), but the game will otherwise run.

Wikipedia's article about PulseAudio claims that PulseAudio can emulate ESD. Or is this emulation too broken to work with SimCity 3000?

I was mistaken

[sgt scrub]

I have always believed that Linux deserves to be a gaming platform. I use my machine for games. They are fun, exciting, and most are open source. I've never had to go online to sign up for an account to play any of them. I don't need to maintain an online presence so as to provide someone with information about my behavior. Games I play are available without having to buy a box specifically designed to satisfy the DRM needs of the games I am playing. If games on Linux comes at the loss of those benefits, or the Linux desktop is replaced by some java user interface that pushes the user towards signing up for things, I'm not seeing the benefit.

Close Steam, open GNOME, install game

[tepples]

Games I play are available without having to buy a box specifically designed to satisfy the DRM needs of the games I am playing. If games on Linux comes at the loss of those benefits, or the Linux desktop is replaced by some java user interface that pushes the user towards signing up for things, I'm not seeing the benefit.

This article states that SteamOS users can close the Steam client and bring up a GNOME desktop. At that point, the user can install any game made for Debian.

Re:Close Steam, open GNOME, install game

[tepples]

I'm not a lawyer, but neither is Anonymous Coward, who wrote:

not a single legitimate use of a ROM copier exists.

At least in Slashdot's home country, your claim is at odds with 17 USC 117(a)(1), which states that making a copy or adaptation of a computer program for use on a particular machine is not copyright infringement.

"poor software support"

[PopeRatzo]

I wonder if when the first Nintendo Wii was released people accused it of having "poor software support". They only had a small fraction of the number of games that are available already for SteamOS.

Funny what a little money spent on marketing can do. Even "independent" voices in the media will treat you differently if they see you throwing money around.

The Wii got a nice tongue bath from the media whereas Steam boxes get a lot of "where are the games?"

It's a good thing that we don't put the popular media in charge of anything. First, because they're barely even able to perform the one task they are charged with, but also because they are so easy to con.

Re:Pretty much

[Grishnakh]

I mean, suppose all of a sudden Intel, AMD, and nVidia got together and decided to totally change everything. New ISA, no more DirectX or OpenGL, etc, etc. Everything would need to be reported, redeveloped, and it would be a massive problem.

This wouldn't happen, because, as you say, everything would need to be re-developed, and it would put these companies out of business. I don't just mean Linux software would need to be re-ported, I mean they'd have to wait for all-new software of every kind to be developed to run on their chips. It's not like MS can port Windows to a whole new ISA in 3 months and the companies which use OpenGL/DX would be able to get together and develop a new graphics API and port all their software to it in that time. It would take years for the dust to settle, and I'm just talking about proprietary software here, and totally neglecting open-source stuff. So the very idea is just ludicrous.

This idea that a Steam Box is needed for some kind of stability is silly.

No it's not. It's about control. With Win8, MS is trying to take more control over the PC software ecosystem by emulating Apple's "app store", and they're also moving development in a new direction with the Metro UI. Independent software companies which are mostly tied to the MS platform, and don't like the way it's going, would be stupid to put all their eggs in one basket, which of course is why you see more software for Macs these days that 10 years ago. Valve's direction makes total sense: they're trying to get more control over the platform their software runs on, and that's pretty easy to do with Linux since it's open, allowing you to build custom OS builds easily, and also allowing software vendors a certain amount of power in dictating the direction of development of the OS if they wish (and the existing players agree with them and accept their patches), which you simply don't get with a proprietary OS vendor.

The parent has it right: It is an ego thing, and a thing to try and protect Steam.

That's not an "ego" thing, that's good business sense. Putting your company's future in the hands of another company which doesn't have your interests at heart, and which actually competes with your company in some ways (MS has their own games division), is utterly stupid.

Re:PCs Don't Have Decades for Games

[Seumas]

Nope. Hardware sales are projected to decline very slightly over a couple of years and then start to return. For a market that is constantly under the claim of "dying", they sure are selling an awful lot of $1,000 video cards and $300 CPUs and $300 chassis' and making whole businesses out of catering to even more niche markets like water cooling nuts.

Steam has 65,000,000 users. That is more than XBOX (but less than Playstation). That's not PC gamers. That's just *Steam* gamers.

Consoles are $300-$500. The lowest end gaming PC that you can get by with starts at that price. Further, games have largely been targeted at consoles and ported to PCs in such a way that they just don't really demand much of the PC hardware.

In other words, PC gaming is as big as it has ever been. Even if mobile and console platforms grow massively, that doesn't detract from PC gaming. You can do more than one platform. It's just that software necessitates the increase in hardware capacity and software just hasn't been making those demands for a long time, leaving PC gamers to make longer use of their PC hardware. That reflects in hardware sales. A reduction in hardware sales means just that - a reduction in hardware sales; not a reduction in people playing on their existing hardware.

Additionally, we've been told for years now that *console* gaming is dying and will soon be dead. And so will all handhelds that aren't a tablet or mobile phone. Of course, that is bullshit. Steam's user numbers, the popularity of PC-only games, and the 8,000,000 PS4 and XB1 consoles sold in the last two months is evidence that it is bullshit.

I am skeptical about the future of PC gaming, but not because of some perceived lack of interested gamers. The only thing that can harm PC gaming is if developers and publishers continue to treat PC gaming like a redheaded stepchild. If they continue to put out PC ports in a half-assed and often-broken fashion and months or years after the console versions of the same game. And if they continue to not exploit the power of the PC, but just port over console versions of games that look and play progressively worse over time as the console platform ages.

If PC gaming dies, it won't be for lack of interest. It'll be because it was sabotaged and undermined by the developers and publishers.

Re:consoles are going to kill PCs this round

[Dunge]

Sorry but I bought a PS4 and I'm not impressed. My PC can render the same games in a much better way, it's my PC is 2 years old. How will the PS4 hold up for the coming years compared to PC? Like crap the PS3 did, crap.

The real next generation

[shastamonk]

Think about up the next generation of game developers - kids growing up right now. If they're gaming on a console and using a tablet or smart phone for their other computing need, they have no real exposure to programming, 3D modeling, audio software or any of the other things that go in to designing games. If Windows and MacOS are moving towards closed software ecosystems and a mobile interface type of simplified UI that hides everything but Twitter and a browser from the user as they both seem to be, Linux is going to have to play a larger part in gaming development in the future. The more devices and distributions tailored for different purposes and specific hardware while still allowing users to peel back the curtains to access everything available on the OS, the better off we'll all be. Kids are curious and will do what they've always done since the advent of personal computing; making cool stuff for fun and to impress people, and unless some change like this takes place, fewer and fewer people will ever be exposed to these tools.

I know my nephew got his parents to buy an iPad just so he could play Minecraft. While the mobile versions of Minecraft make it hard (impossible?) to use addons and mods, I'm sure more than a few kids have been pushed in to building a PC or getting a gaming laptop to really take advantage of what that game has to offer. It'll just take one killer app that allows people to be creative and do things on a Steambox(/Windows/MacOS/Linux) that can't be done on a closed platform to start moving these things.

And in the meantime, Valve will be taking things slow and steady like they always have and building partnerships with hardware and software developers to get SteamOS ready to take over when the inevitable decline of support from MS and Apple for desktop users pushes the hardcore audience over where the games will necessarily follow. Totally agree with the article's author, Valve isn't trying to win a war but positioning itself for a future that's seeming pretty likely if not certain. The Steam machines that are launching now are a low risk investment from everyone involved. Free advertising for Valve, and a simple rebranding of exisiting hardware for the manufacturers. The real test will be how seamlessly and well the streaming works to entice hardcore gamers into putting a HTPC or steam box in their living room, and so far we haven't seen anything there.

Saving the PC platform?

[aiadot]

Everything capable of computing and is owned by a person is a PC: macs are PCs, the PS4 is a PC, smartphones and tablets are PCs, even my brand new Panasonic smart rice cooker is a PC. What people call "pc gaming" is nothing more than windows gaming. Windows games only work on windows/x86 machines(at least out of the box). Steam Machines are not an example of Valve trying to save windows gaming.

IMO, valve is instead trying to create a new version of "pc gaming", in the shape of an open home console(as opposed to the sony/nintendo model closed model) while also trying to expand in the next hot market: smart TVs/living rooms. Having it's own software and hardware platform where your service is the default is also a great way to reduce the visibility of rival game appstores like GOG, Origin and non steam popular games(Minecraft, LoL, Blizzard games).

Not only that but Valve is trying to save something, this something is itself. The business may look great nowadays, but it's foolish to think they're invincible. Windows and Mac are becoming walled gardens, not very friendly towards apps outside the official app stores. Windows PC sales are in record decline. 65 million steam accounts may look impressive at first glance but considering that steam is a FREE service and that even the PS3, the overpriced console that sold the least the last generation, still managed to grab 80 million users(let alone way over a hundred million PSN accounts), it's clear that Valve doesn't have as close as many users as it could. If Valve lose it's momentum, they could easily become irrelevant.

On the other hand as long as Actvision/Blizzard, Minecraft, EA and LoL (and in Japan, porn VNs) exist, Windows PC gaming will exist. Contrary to popular internet forum belief, Windows PC gaming is much more than Steam. I personally believe that, if wasn't for the crazy seasonal sales and mandatory steamworks in some games(Civ5 in my case), many people(including myself) wouldn't even bother with the service.

Re:Saving the PC platform?

[thegarbz]

Everything capable of computing and is owned by a person is a PC: macs are PCs, the PS4 is a PC, smartphones and tablets are PCs, even my brand new Panasonic smart rice cooker is a PC. What people call "pc gaming" is nothing more than windows gaming. Windows games only work on windows/x86 machines(at least out of the box). Steam Machines are not an example of Valve trying to save windows gaming.

Sorry but I could not disagree more. The distinction of the Personal Computer was a general purpose device to be used by the owner for a variety of tasks. I would not call any device with a limiting feature set a Personal Computer. Yes on the smartphone / tablet, yes on the Macs, of course yes on the PC, but the PS4 and your smart rice cooker is NOT a PC. Just because something has the ability to compute does not make it a PC.

Unless of course you can run spreadsheet tasks, check your email etc on your rice cooker in which case I take it back.

Re:Saving the PC platform?

[umafuckit]

What people call "pc gaming" is nothing more than windows gaming.

I disagree. Your definition of PC is obviously too broad. A PC is a desktop or laptop computer running a multi-purpose OS. The new kids of the block, tablets and smart-phones, don't really qualify as PCs because of the poor software selection and bad input device (touch-screen). You can make the case of tablets and phones, but it doesn't change my real point: that a toaster or a PS4 is not a PC. One is a cooking device and the other is a locked-down games console. PC gaming does not mean "windows gaming." You can PC game on Linux, Mac and Windows box. If I run Doom 3 on a Windows box I'm PC gaming and I'm still PC gaming if I fire it up under Linux. I agree, however, that with the addition of a Steam box the distinction between a PC and console becomes blurred.

Re:499 US dollars

[RoLi]

Of course if you don't want to use it as a doorstop, you will need software for it:

XBox One: A handful of games at typically 50$

Steambox: Already over hundred games at typically 20$

And that is exactly why the Steambox will be a success.

Re:Small form factor

[donaldm]

OK, how about this. http://www.directron.com/cheap-save-pc-3.html Use the dropdown to pick the Gforce GT630 for $70 and the entire package is $317. You can do better picking some parts, but this is a full package, assembled and tested.

Terrific! a "dual core" processor (admittedly at 3GHz) and 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 memory compared to 8 CPU's and 8 GB memory of the latest consoles. Oh great the PC does have a DVD RW drive compared to a BD/DVD read only drive. Sorry this is not the same as the latest consoles and you have not even added in the cost of a keyboard, mouse and possibly a controller which if you are a serious gamer is not going to be under a $80. Also I am quite sure which device I would prefer next to my HDTV and it is not that.

Of course this site is in the USA and is no help for people in other countries who would normally pay 10% to 40% more. In Australia we would pay AU$549 for the PS4 (if you can get one, since it is out of stock at the moment) and AU$599 for the XBOne. AU$1.00 = US$0.90 as of the time of this posting..

Still to be fair the PC you have the link to is quite acceptable for general use although you would have to install you own OS which in the case of a Microsoft OS is also going to cost unless you are one of the "Green Parrot Brigade" :).

Re:499 US dollars

[Therad]

And where is the free multiplayer? And the steam sales? And backwards compatibility? A steam machine will be cheaper in the long run. No questions about it.

DX release - all platforms?

[danknight48]

I think we are close to seeing Microsoft actually having to release/support Direct X on all platforms.
Thats all they need to do to put a slowdown on Steam controlling the linux gaming market.

It will happen, MS will be forced to rethink their PC market dominance and control. In the mean time, I just hope openGL becomes the king of PC gaming, once again.

Slighty OT, but...

[cplusplus]

When I read "Big-3 console manufacturers" in the summary, I thought "Three? Who's the third? .. .... Oh yeah, Nintendo." How sad.