Does anyone even know what Steam Machines are?

[BrotherRool]

Actually they might sell very well. Dear god it'd be like the Xbox but you know with a massive game library, and without a spy camera. Also I don't think anyone likes Windows 8 and given the way MS seems to be trying to relase OS system, the move away from Windows is probably a good thing. Heck Devs have been wanting this for years.

Ideally you also have the option of building your own custom steam machine, since you just need the OS which if valve is smart will be freely available.

It'll probably do quite well.

You can download it freely already.

I keep going back on forth on how well it's going to do. SteamOS is, at the moment, a strictly worse version of Windows, so if this was what someone wanted, why haven't they done it already? True, Windows costs $100 but PC gamers have never been particularly budget conscious right? If you're making a $700 computer I can believe that people have been holding back because it actually costs $750

On the other hand yeah, maybe this is something that people want but didn't consider doing until someone outright sold them the idea?

You're giving up a lot of the advantages of consoles. You're giving up the guarantee that any game you buy will run like it's supposed to and that it will do that for the next 5-10 years, you're giving up optimised hardware, subsidised prices and possibly some of the simplicity. But on the other hand you gain mods, and if you're a graphics nut then you get to obssess about pixels with upgrades, you get a built in games library

...which you'll only have if you already have an expensive PC that you already play games on...

It could really go either way. I think if anything kills it off it's going to be the streaming. At the moment SteamOS is basically useless to anyone who likes AAA games and doesn't already have a gaming PC, so you're basically paying $600+ for a mild convenience. This is what will turn people off. Is the latency going to be bad? Can someone feasibly use your other PC when you're streaming? etc Will people start porting to Linux? Probably only if SteamOS has sufficient users which will only be if sufficient people want to use SteamOS which is only if AAA people start porting to Linux... etc. It's the WiiU problem again.

 

[Lightknight]

So does anyone actually know what the hell these things are? I could tell you what the Ouya was and that was pretty weird. Not these things though.

Pre-build PCs bundled with a Steam controller and come with Steam OS. That's it. Think, say, Alienware PCs (as in "pre-built option") but anyone can get the license to build and sell them, so you get variety in the models. That's pretty much it, really.

Yep, they're pc's specifically made for the living room and for steam gaming. They're technically consoles, though, as much as ps4s and XBOs are consoles now that everything is x86.

Frankly, I'd rather go console where living room efficiency is concerned but I also already have two gaming pcs, one of which is a laptop.

 

[Something Amyss]

as others have mentioned pre build pc's that come bundled with the steam OS and a steam controller and like consoles probably cant be upgraded on the other side that probably isnt going to be much of an issue as development will stagnate again soon due to rising costs, the fact they cant push hardware limits and the next console cycle is due to last what? 10 years?

Several Steam Machines are confirmed upgradable and only the Alienware brand is confirmed to not be. And costs have never stopped gaming from expanding. They just look for new ways to pass it on to the consumer.

Essentially pre built PCs with Steam OS on them. The main selling point is that they are meant to be small (somewhere between a regular PC and a console in size) but they also had their prices increased for no seemingly good reason making them worthless compared to regular PCs.

There are a couple priced competitively with consoles, which would make them still attractive options.

Well, if not for the rest of the package. They come with SteamOS only (the affordable ones) and can only play non-Linux games if you have another PC to stream from, for example. You're not getting your whole Steam library unless you were already on Linux or you've got another computer you're going to dedicate. This sort of thing seems to limit the field on the Steam Machine.

Also, SteamOS will encourage devs to develop for Linux which can only be an advantage for us gamers.

That's a huuuge assumption and one that seems to be made because you want it to be true, not based on real likelihood or probability.

Its hard to find a game on steam that wont run right away on a pc that has the minimum specs.

You're joking, right? Hell, I've had games that won't run when I beat the recommended specs, and tons of games have Steam forums with dozens of "won't run" or "won't load" without any of the myriad users responding can't fix. How fortunate, then, that Steam excels in customer service....

The thing you're missing is that this isn't aimed at people who have PCs already, or who feel comfortable gaming on PCs, it's for people who want a system as easy to use as a console, but with all the benefits of PC gaming like the large library of games and exclusives (even excluding Windows only ones), mods, cheap prices, etc.

Except there isn't a large library of games unless you want to slap Windows on it (already trodding into scary PC tech territory) or already/also own a PC running Windows you don't mind being dedicated to streaming.

Speaking of....

WHAT?!!! I didn't know that! So if I bought one I wouldn't be able to play, say, The Witcher? Damn...

I think they're hoping people won't know.

 

[BrotherRool]

Actually that's the joy of it,. The way they're trying to do SteamOS is that it should be able to run any game that is currently up on steam. You also have to consider that this isn't just about PC's only . Mac games as well. In short it could be just what devs have been asking for.

No it doesn't work like that. The way it works is that only a game which is designed for Linux will run on SteamOS, out of steams 2700ish games, that's 300 of them and almost all of them are small indie titles.

But what you can do (and what Valve has been advertising when they say 'play all your steam titles') is you can have a Windows PC somewhere in your house running a Steam game and then stream it to your SteamOS machine.

 

[Something Amyss]

The good news is you can probably do it yourself if you have a spare Windows install, setting up PCI passthrough for a VM should preserve most of the performance.

If you're savvy enough to do that, you don't need a Steam Machine and you're not really the target market.

PLus, one of the big claims is that it runs games at 1080p with a smooth 60 FPS. I'm not sure "most" of the performance will still deliver that, especially given some of the lower-end ones which are actually competitively priced.

Actually that's the joy of it,. The way they're trying to do SteamOS is that it should be able to run any game that is currently up on steam.

Can I play any game in my library out of the box, without resorting to emulation or streaming from another PC?

 

[thiosk]

The reasoning behind them, are because Valve hates Windows 8 and thinks that Microsoft are killing the PC market. Honestly, I dont think they are going to sell well...

To be clear, it is irrelevant whether they sell well. It like android- google essentially gives it away to the phone manufacturers. Steam is doing the same thing with the os. If one is going to buy a gaming PC, it establishes for the first time that third party licenses and peripherals are not part of the equation. The builder does not need to sell a Microsoft oem for 100 bucks with the bundle. If a computer can use a browser and run games, there is no longer beholden to Microsoft for its mere existence.

Microsoft is becoming an albatross. With the exception of Microsoft office and adobe, I do not need windows at all.
If steam could bundle that software and let me run it on os, I would never need another copy of windows . I likely won't get office, busyness
I can move to open office. Who knows.

 

[SecondPrize]

The basic idea was to have a smaller, quieter and gaming-focused pc you plug into your tv in your living room so you can play games on your couch. Whether the options revealed accomplish this, I don't know.

 

[AT God]

Does anyone know if games that are played through Steam on Steam Machines will be able to play online with PC users? I really want to beat the crap out of some gamepad users on Counter-Strike, at least I want to pretend I will be able to.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Spoiler

Well steam machines were a type of technology that kickstarted the industrial revolution. They were used extensively until fossil fuel systems became more effec- Oh you mean some console.

I feel kind of stupid now.

 

[BrotherRool]

The good news is you can probably do it yourself if you have a spare Windows install, setting up PCI passthrough for a VM should preserve most of the performance.

If you're savvy enough to do that, you don't need a Steam Machine and you're not really the target market.

PLus, one of the big claims is that it runs games at 1080p with a smooth 60 FPS. I'm not sure "most" of the performance will still deliver that, especially given some of the lower-end ones which are actually competitively priced.

Actually that's the joy of it,. The way they're trying to do SteamOS is that it should be able to run any game that is currently up on steam.

Can I play any game in my library out of the box, without resorting to emulation or streaming from another PC?

I'm 99% sure he's got that wrong and mixed up streaming with actually being able to play the game.

That claim about 1080p 60FPS, was that something Valve made for all Steam machines? I don't know how much the SteamOS saves, but if they do manage that on the $600 machines that would be fairly impressive. Although I'm not sure the difference would be enough to convince a mass market

 

[ForumSafari]

If you're savvy enough to do that, you don't need a Steam Machine and you're not really the target market.

Which opens up the question of who exactly the target market for first generation hardware is, I'm not sure these even have a target market. Though I'd argue the lower end ones for game streaming probably are up my alley.

PLus, one of the big claims is that it runs games at 1080p with a smooth 60 FPS. I'm not sure "most" of the performance will still deliver that, especially given some of the lower-end ones which are actually competitively priced.

Consistently high FPS shouldn't be an issue on current hardware, even lower end stuff at 1080p, it's not a huge resolution these days and PCI passthrough really is very efficient. Remember they promise frame rate and resolution, not graphical settings.

 

[DoPo]

Does anyone know if games that are played through Steam on Steam Machines will be able to play online with PC users? I really want to beat the crap out of some gamepad users on Counter-Strike, at least I want to pretend I will be able to.

Yes - it is a PC, it is playing virtually the same games you can run on any other PC - it is really unlikely to have separate servers for separate users, especially since anybody could just plug in a keyboard and a mouse at any time, or somebody on a "normal" PC can plug in a Steam controller.

 

[Yopaz]

They should have found a hardware partner, and made a dedicated Steam "machine" instead of 20 different models.

Protesting against the closed market of consoles and how Microsoft wants to close PC market. Make their own system closed by committing to one manufacturer.

You do see where the contradiction is here, right? It would be a smart move in order to market their new system and it would most likely sell more, but it would be the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.

The different manufacturers is also about making Linux a better future choice for gamers since several manufacturers with different hardware means there will be new drivers to support more variation.

Valve isn't pushing for a new console, they are pushing for a new OS. That is another reason why picking one manufacturer would be a BAD move.

 

[smithy_2045]

The thing you're missing is that this isn't aimed at people who have PCs already, or who feel comfortable gaming on PCs, it's for people who want a system as easy to use as a console, but with all the benefits of PC gaming like the large library of games and exclusives (even excluding Windows only ones), mods, cheap prices, etc.

Except that those people will not know what they are getting in to. They likely expect that they will be able to access all of the PC games like they did with their console of choice (though they likely understand the lack of backwards compatibility at this point). So they won't understand why their (up to) $12,000 machine refuses to play the latest greatest Call of Duty game, and the short answer is, because it doesn't have Windows. So now they have to hire someone to install windows on a Dual Boot partition so they can play all of the games available to them or learn how to work on PC's themselves, and at this point they may as well have gone ahead and learnt enough about PCs to get a decent one to start with that didn't cost them an arm and a leg. The flip side is, you will have someone with a $500 Steambox that can play Limbo, Machinarium, and Trine (don't get me wrong, those are all great games, but that is a waste of money).

Either way you look at it, you are wasting money over getting what you really wanted in the first place, and that is a PC that can do all of the above, while costing less than $600 (if you don't include monitor and just hook it up to your Tele).

I'm pretty sure the high end Steamboxes have Windows installed too.

They should have found a hardware partner, and made a dedicated Steam "machine" instead of 20 different models.

Protesting against the closed market of consoles and how Microsoft wants to close PC market. Make their own system closed by committing to one manufacturer.

You do see where the contradiction is here, right? It would be a smart move in order to market their new system and it would most likely sell more, but it would be the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish.

The different manufacturers is also about making Linux a better future choice for gamers since several manufacturers with different hardware means there will be new drivers to support more variation.

Valve isn't pushing for a new console, they are pushing for a new OS. That is another reason why picking one manufacturer would be a BAD move.

Also, Valve considerably reduces their own financial liability by allowing almost anyone to make a Steam Machine. They don't need the boxes to be a success to profit out of this. Their money is going into SteamOS (can be put on any PC), Steam Controller (can be plugged into any PC/SteamBox) and Steam (works on any PC). Sure it helps if the Steam Machines are successful, but they're not the main focus here.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm 99% sure he's got that wrong and mixed up streaming with actually being able to play the game.

Yeah, it was rhetorical. I know that you can only play Linux games natively (and with the comprehension level of the people they seem to be going after).

That claim about 1080p 60FPS, was that something Valve made for all Steam machines? I don't know how much the SteamOS saves, but if they do manage that on the $600 machines that would be fairly impressive. Although I'm not sure the difference would be enough to convince a mass market

I though it was a claim for the machines in general, not a specific machine.

Which opens up the question of who exactly the target market for first generation hardware is, I'm not sure these even have a target market. Though I'd argue the lower end ones for game streaming probably are up my alley.

I don't know if even Valve really knows what the plan is here. A bunch of people are giving a bunch of difference answers on what the real intent is here, and I think at the very least it indicates there's been no clear message or branding.

The ones that are competitively priced with consoles kind of make sense but appear to be the minority. Then there's the difference between open and closed configurations, multiple hardware types available, etc. It seems like it confuses the market needlessly rather than offering any specific benefit.

Consistently high FPS shouldn't be an issue on current hardware, even lower end stuff at 1080p, it's not a huge resolution these days and PCI passthrough really is very efficient. Remember they promise frame rate and resolution, not graphical settings.

I'm still skeptical, especially if these are to have any sense of longevity. I see a lot of claims about problems running even at marginal settings from more dedicated users, so I'm going to believe it when I see it.

 

[KazeAizen]

I agree their messaging really isn't that clear to be people who might not be into PC gaming like some of us are. In my opinion, having multiple manufacturers is going to confuse the market even more.

They should have found a hardware partner, and made a dedicated Steam "machine" instead of 20 different models.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. To the letter.

 

[J Tyran]

I don't think even the makers and even Valve know what they are, if they wanted a console type device they should have only had those Cyberpower machines for $500. If Valve want pre-built Steam OS PCs they should rename certain ones and keep the "console" machines as Steam machines, call all the other "Steam PCs" or something.

Anyone interested in a PC would know the difference the Steam PCs have while the people after a console substitute would know the Steam machines have a much more streamlined range, as it is its a mess thats no different from buying a Windows pre-built PC for anyone intimidated by them.

 

[barbzilla]

The reasoning behind them, are because Valve hates Windows 8 and thinks that Microsoft are killing the PC market. Honestly, I dont think they are going to sell well...

To be clear, it is irrelevant whether they sell well. It like android- google essentially gives it away to the phone manufacturers. Steam is doing the same thing with the os. If one is going to buy a gaming PC, it establishes for the first time that third party licenses and peripherals are not part of the equation. The builder does not need to sell a Microsoft oem for 100 bucks with the bundle. If a computer can use a browser and run games, there is no longer beholden to Microsoft for its mere existence.

Microsoft is becoming an albatross. With the exception of Microsoft office and adobe, I do not need windows at all.
If steam could bundle that software and let me run it on os, I would never need another copy of windows . I likely won't get office, busyness
I can move to open office. Who knows.

Except that this has been around for the past decade and hasn't made a difference. The reason people use Windows now is because of software compatibility (with a few notable exceptions for the creative types and apple, though that comparison is swiftly disappearing).

I'm 99% sure he's got that wrong and mixed up streaming with actually being able to play the game.

That claim about 1080p 60FPS, was that something Valve made for all Steam machines? I don't know how much the SteamOS saves, but if they do manage that on the $600 machines that would be fairly impressive. Although I'm not sure the difference would be enough to convince a mass market

Actually 1080p and 60fps isn't that huge of a leap (with the exception of the $500 machine and CoD Ghost). My machine could probably be put together for $450 (if you don't include windows) and it plays everything at 1080p on two screens with steady FPS around 70 (with the exception of BF4, though that game is a big steaming pile of optimization issues). The problem people are having with the Streaming claim on SteamOS is that many people are assuming that means streaming from Valve's servers, which is false. It will stream from your Windows based gaming rig, which negates the purpose of having the Steammachine in the first place.

Linux based OS as a platform option literally JUST started. Of course there isnt much content yet. Gotta START somewhere. But because of that, is why I dont think they are going to sell well, and I dont think developers are going to scramble to port their games to that platform either. Unfortunately.

Anyways... I was just giving info, not giving much of an opinion on Steam Machines. I definitely wouldnt buy one.

Thanks for the comment, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with most of it. Linux has been a fairly common platform for the past decade, yet not many devs manufacture for it due to the number of different distributions and hardware/software/driver variances, so it makes it a nightmare to program for. Steammachines, I thought, would rectify that situation by standardizing what went into them hardware and software wise with custom drivers to run them at optimal speeds, but instead we get PCs with SteamOS, a controller, and a sticker in place of what I thought was a nifty idea.

You are correct though, the lack of content will drive sales down, and the lack of sales will dissuade content creators from porting their content onto that OS.

I'm pretty sure the high end Steamboxes have Windows installed too.

I'm sure a number of them will dual boot with Windows, but that still defeats the purpose of having a Steambox in the first place, doesn't it?