Poll: What will the release of Steam Machines mean to you?
- Thread starter Nicholas Chandler-Yates
- Start date
Recommended Videos
it *is* in beta... lol why do you think they just sent out 300 steam machines to people to get them to test it out???CrossLOPER said:
Edit: In-home game streaming between PCs of same or different OSs is about to start in an open beta test.
http://gamerant.com/steam-os-machine-streaming-details/
Well size for one is a difference with PCs... the size of these things is TINY compared to the size of pretty much all PCs of similar specs. Also Valve has stated that they are releasing the CAD designs for their case... so they are basically saying... if you don't want to buy one, BUILD ONE IF YOU WANT, all you need is the controller at that point.
If I were valve I would make the Steam Machines about 10% more than whatever it costs them to build and sell it. And then bundle ALL of Valve's games on it for free, including L4D3 and HL3 (which accidentally released info shows are in full swing and will *probably* release with Steam OS), already downloaded onto the HD and ready to play for anyone that buys a Steam Machine. That would allow valve to make an immediate profit (opposite to other consoles who are selling at a loss), that would MORE than justify the extra cost to people moving into the PC market for the first time, and since the Steam Machine is digital only (no optical drive) new customers will have games to play immediately while they wait for other titles to download. Add a bunch of other F2P titles also pre-downloaded on the HD, and the thing would practically come with a game library for free.
Hypothetical of course, but it could be good business sense.
Right.lacktheknack said:
So you insist I'm pulling numbers out of my ass.
Yet if you did your subtraction math, you would see that that is exactly what I said anyway.
Portal 2 came out 20ll. That is nearly three years ago
Left 4 Dead 2 came out in 2009. That is 4 years ago
Alien Swarm came out in 2010 that's three years ago
Dota 2 has been in public "beta" since 2011. Even in Beta mode they still did various holiday specials and it might as well of been a released game in everything but title. that's still two years ago The only difference now is that it doesn't have the "beta" tagname on it.
I already acknowledged that Counter Strike Global offensive was the only game they released recently in my first post. However it's more convenient for you to ignore that part in favor of slinging insults at me.
I'm not that interested in it, unless it turns out cheaper than building a PC and i can put windows on it, if thats true then i might buy one to replace my bulky old PC, but if it's restricted to steam OS then no thanks and i'm not interested in streaming games whatsoever. In any case i need more info on it, but i'm pretty sure that it's gonna be restricted to playing games that you have on steam and my library is pretty thin because of their shitty pricing.
"Slinging insults".Dragonbums said:
It's a dark day when someone flagrantly disregards my statement and says that my attempts to move it back are "insults".
I said "Valve has released a game a year since Half Life, minus 2002" and then listed five games they'd released in the last five years.
Exact quote:
You then took issue with this and mentioned a couple guesstimates that were both two years off.lacktheknack said:
I pointed out that you were completely wrong.
You then stretched your argument into some strange middle-logic where somehow, releasing five games in five years is somehow unacceptable. You were even so bold as to point out a game released two and a half years ago and then said "that's almost three years", as if that stretch of the truth would somehow not prove me entirely right in the first place. Also, apparently actively supporting a multiple-year beta is further evidence of corporate stagnation and laziness in your mind.
You're supposed to APPEAL to the person you're arguing with, not antagonize them with untruths.
Madame, you've lost this argument, and no insults were exchanged. Move on.
HMMPH! These steam-machines are a passing craze, I guarantee it! Just you wait! It'll be mere months until each and every one of their engines overheat and explode, killing thousands! What about our coal supplies, hmmm?! How am I supposed to keep my house warm with these confounded battleships consuming coal faster than we can mine it! PREPOSTEROUS, I SAY!!
====
Alright, I'm moderately proud of that joke someone else probably made. Now that's out of the way, I commend Valve for taking a risk; the Steam Box and its brethren are only going to appeal to a niche market, as consoles at large seem to be more popular for gaming (don't quote me on that) and most PC gamers... well, they already own a PC. Of course, there seems to be a sizable demographic shifting over from consoles to PC in light of the recent (and, from my perspective, justified) skepticism regarding the two recently released consoles.
Can't say I'm a fan of controllers in general, at least for first/third person shooters and strategy games (which happen to make up the bulk of what I play), but the Steam controller is interesting to say the least. I'd need to purchase or borrow one and get a feel for it
lacktheknack said:
Right.
So I was wrong on two of them where I specifically stated that they were almostreleased X amount of years ago? Yet that's me being wrong. And considering I only got two of them "wrong" so to speak means that you posting those dates there mean nothing to me since those are basically the dates I was referring to anyway.
That's not what I said. I said I find it funny that companies like Ubisoft, Nintendo, and various other companies get chewed out on the Escapist all the time for only making games for a specific franchise(s) yet Valve gets a free pass and a shield to go with it despite the fact that 3 of their 5 games are sequels/expansions to their existing IP. Let's not even forget that a good chunk of them weren't even made by Valve in the first place, but rather they hired the people who made the original concepts of said games and put a Valve coat of paint on it. Any other company who did that would be called out as being a hack. Valve are called out as geniuses. Does that mean those games are bad? No.
But I find it funny that it tends to be ignored while we all criticize the likes of EA for doing the same thing.
How is saying that a stretch of the truth? We are 1 1/3 months away from it being the end of the 2013 year as of today. That is very much almost 5 years since Valve first released L4D2.
Yes. on a dev team of creative individuals only bug fixing, and adding content updates to a continuous running game isn't exactly Valve using all of their creative horsepower.
What was the last new thing Valve has done? Or since we have a hard on for new IP's outside of Alien Swarm (which I only knew existed until now) what new IP have they come up with (That they didn't just hire from the outside like they did for TF2, and Portal)
We can criticize Activision for adding DLC content to Assassins Creed, or how the AAA industry add ass loads of DLC content and continue support to their games and talk about how uninspired they are, but with Valve it's a whole nother ball game?
Except for the fact that I never said any "untruths" if I recall.
Yes. Because nobody is allowed to criticize Valve as a game developer studio.
That's the problem with Valve. It's like any criticism directed their way is deflected immediately. The only legitimate criticism against them that nobody bothers to defend is their Steam policies.
But man oh man, the moment you criticism them as a game company you are in for it.
Your criticisms aren't actually valid, though.Dragonbums said:
If you want to criticize them as a game company, focus on something that is true and exists.
Claiming they don't produce anything is patently false. This isn't a fanboy thing, it's a real-life thing.
How do you know it'll be overpriced? How do you know it'll be gimped? Of the units they're sending out for the 300 beta testers, some of them will be sporting NVidia TITANS and i7 processors. That's WAY better than my (by most people's standards really high powered) computer, so yeah if THAT Steam Machine got sold commercially (protip: it won't) then it WOULD be really expensive, because it's using a $1000 graphics card not even considering the other parts. But the thing with Steam Machines is that there will be lots of different ones made by different companies for different markets for different prices. Want a high end PC-like Steam Machine? There will probably be one. Want a mid-range one that's portable to take on the road for you? They'll have you covered. Need a small one that'll only be used as a streaming hub, someone will make one. If there's a market for it, one can be made by anyone who has the know how to make it. And the price ranges for these devices will vary wildly. And guess what? If you don't like ANY of the ones on offer, you can turn your custom made PC into a Steam Machine or install SteamOS and get all the benefits of a steam machine on the computer you already have. But some people may want streaming machines or an entry level rig to get their feet wet into PC gaming without the hassle. That's who these consoles are aimed at. They'll also be customisable and upgradable in the same way as PC's are. To say that the steam machines will be overpriced and/or gimped at this stage is either extremely ignorant or extremely anti-Valve hate-speech because so far there is NO indication for (or against) this argument, since none of that information is even available yet. So why don't we just wait and see before blindly hating something you know nothing about.ClausGrimm said:
Also CONSOLES are also LITERALLY nothing but PCs that have been gimped and focused as a toy for your living room. They now even use the exact same architecture as PCs for coding and the only real different between a console and a PC is that consoles are monopolized by one company, are completely locked down in terms of both hardware and software, and have a lot more limitations than PCs do. Steam machines won't have any of these limitations.
Also how exactly do you propose that we stream our PC to our TV? If it's in a room that's separate from where your TV is you need something to stream it to unless you have a really expensive high tech TV (do any TV's currently on the market support this functionality?) A cheap Steam Machine DESIGNED to be nothing more than a streaming box would fill this need perfectly and probably not have very expensive hardware at all so it'll be fairly cheap too.
Pretty stupid, really. I already have a decent PC; I don't see why I need to buy another whole system for it.
How about I make cardboard stands of all of the accesories, and the machine itself, and line them up around my computer instead. It'd probably be just as efficient.[(/snark]
How about I make cardboard stands of all of the accesories, and the machine itself, and line them up around my computer instead. It'd probably be just as efficient.[(/snark]
Off topic but you still haven't even addressed my refutation of what you said on the previous page, and I think it's still relevant to the discussion at hand. Allow me to repost it here:Dragonbums said:
No matter how you rationalize it, Valve is a SMALL company, and they are revolutionizing the industry in ways that Activision, EA, and Ubisoft have never done. So maybe their game output falls. So what? They've made PC gaming viable not only on Windows, but also on MAC and Linux which were previously ghost towns for PC gaming. They were the first company to make digital distribution viable. And they are now moving into the living room to bring the PC experience to console gamers. AND they're STILL making games. That's impressive to me.
I predict that they will make one which is designed exclusively for streaming and/or indie games (ala the Ouya) which will be $150-200 at most and maybe cheaper. Im not a hardware expert but they've publically stated that they're going to make these consoles for a wide range of applications and price ranges. For you to assume that they're going to just rip everyone off because they can and write the console off based on that is silly. Steam is trying to break into the living room and if everything was way overpriced then it would fail and I think Valve is smart enough to know that.ClausGrimm said:
You do understand that Steam Machines won't just be ONE console right? They're having several manufacturers make several different kinds of steam machines for different markets and applications. To think that there won't be a ~$100 one made for streaming would be silly.
It might not be for you, but to say that it's a ripoff and an overpriced waste of money before the specs, price or even the MANUFACTURERS have been revealed is incredibly arrogant on your part.
By your own logic, if you can buy a $100 laptop for streaming, then Valve could also make a box made for streaming (that probably won't even need to have as many components/specs/software as said laptop[no CD drive, small hard drive, no screen or keyboard or trackpad, no Windows OS license or software]) for $100 or less too. I don't need to be a hardware expert to have an opinion on something and debate someone who is just blindly dismissing something when the facts aren't even out yet. Whether you're a hardware expert or not, you don't know what Valve has planned for their machines or what they plan to charge for them. You're the one making the very assertive doomsday claim about steam machines, you have the burden of proof to show why you're right. I'm not claiming that Valve's new machines will be the greatest thing ever, only disagreeing with your claim that you can automatically rule them out completely with literally no evidence. You're the one making the arrogant claim here because you're asserting a claim and presenting no evidence aside from random speculation and doomsday predictions on your part.ClausGrimm said:
You could be completely right, and these will be a massive overpriced flop. But so far we have no evidence to support that claim and so you are being arrogant with your assertion that this console MUST be a failure before any facts are available.
THERE YOU GO: 'I am a hardware expert.'ClausGrimm said:
*I*, however, am not, and a 20% markup is reasonable to me for the hassle it saves me: I don't have to search out all the parts, CHOOSE all the parts, get them SHIPPED TO NEW ZEALAND (which might end up in a more than 20% markup), find a case, put the damn thing together, HOPE it works, install an OS, buy a controller separately, etc, etc, etc, and STILL end up with a larger machine, because I doubt I can build something that is as small as steam machines have been purported to be (at least the beta ones).
*I* am PRECISELY the target audience for this, I want a gaming PC, don't want to buy overpriced Alienware shit, but don't want the hassle of building it myself.
And I don't want some massive tower that is gonna be a pain in my ass to carry around with me when I move (I move house a lot), or be something massive sitting next to my TV.
Edit: the Ouya was a failure for 3 reasons, their controller sucked, it wasn't powerful enough to even run all mobile games without chugging, and the launch lineup was a bit bad.
I don't see how steam will have any of these problems.
1: while some might not like the new controller, initial reviews have been almost universally positive as a very useful bit of hardware tech.
2: steam machines are modular, "pick your own power level" from the modest- to the extreme.
3: Steam Machines may have the biggest launch lineup of any console EVER, in terms of sheer volume of games (if you consider them a console, and if you consider the existing steam library a launch lineup).
I'm keen to see what they do with it but very little else.
Personally I can't see sticking the Steam brand name on a linux distro causing a great amount of developers to rush to the operating system.
Personally I can't see sticking the Steam brand name on a linux distro causing a great amount of developers to rush to the operating system.
Valve has already publicly stated that the 300 beta units should not be considered representative of what the final manufacturers will be making (see EDIT). They just wanted to make an example of a high end model and ship them out to see how people interacted with them and help guide the direction of their actual retail hardware that they'll eventually sell. They made those beta units in house purely to give out to test. The actual models will be made by actual computer hardware manufacturers and have different components and specs which haven't been revealed yet, and they will be tailor made to suit various different needs (high performance, small size, streaming-only, quiet, light, etc). While some might be $2000 monsters that can run any game on Max Settings at 4K resolution, I'd wager that most will be between $400-800 middle of the road consoles with specs similar or slightly better than the next gen consoles/mid range PCs. I'm positive that I've read an article where a Valve employee has stated that there will likely be cheap models made for super entry level PC gaming and streaming. So far I haven't been able to track down that source but if I find it I will update my post here.ClausGrimm said:
EDIT: From the FAQ that was posted the first day these were announced:
http://store.steampowered.com/livingroom/SteamMachines/
Also- ultimately if the Steam Machines don't appeal to you you don't have to buy one. Valve isn't forcing anyone to buy them, and Steam/SteamOS will work on any normal PC that you already have if that's a better option for you.
And people like to call the Nintendo Defense Force annoying.lacktheknack said:
That is one observation I have seen constantly with Valve fans.
Nobody can touch them when it comes to making games.
The last big advertisement I have seen for their games is Portal 2. That's it.
They are more of a software digital store front than a game company now and you know it. Yeah, the make games from time to time, but at their core they still focus more on Steam and the expansion of Steam than anything else.
This is on top of the fact that criticisms levied at other companies- Valve gets a free pass on.
People want to know what is happening to HL3. Instead of just coming out and saying they aren't working on it anymore, like even the scummiest of companies like EA would do, they keep declining solid answers and keep somehow managing to keep the hype machine running for years.
Any criticisms against them are met with swift backlash from diehard Valve fans.
Because Valve never does anything wrong, and anyone who dares says otherwise is clearly irrational.
You keep posting release dates of games, which I have basically said beforehand anyway. I just never put a definite number on it.
You then use my username in a mock parody, and overall get all heated because I called out Valve on some of the stuff they get a free pass on that other companies would be called out on in a heartbeat.
I mean, I don't spend my life in front of a computer. Chances are if somebody takes a while to reply to you it can be assumed that they are either somewhere else on the web, or they are doing something in real life.Sight Unseen said:
And they can't expand...because?
Ubisoft and Activision have shown no real interest in getting into the hardware business anyway. So they aren't even Valve's competition, and they certainly don't give a shit what Valve decides to do. They are simply a third party dev studio going along their daily business.
The only reason why EA is in the spotlight is because they launched Origin. Steam's primary competitor.
Valve isn't revolutionizing the industry. They are simply revolutionizing digital game distribution. Something that only has a large affect on PC gamers. For console and handheld gamers it only created a ripple affect in as much as each console has an online store which was probably going to happen anyway, with or without Valve.
The annoying part about claims like these is that it assumes the only reason why console gamers are still console gamers is because they don't know anything about PC gaming. The fact of the matter is we do. I play games on my laptop from time to time. However I still want to play games on my consoles and handhelds. The Steambox seems to only mainly attract PC gamers in need of a new rig. And even then that is entirely dependent on whether or not they can simply build a PC cheaper.
The Steambox is simply Steam OS inside a box. It isn't bringing any "PC" experience to the living room. It's bringing PC games to the living room. Something that only for a few genres most people already have.
Afterall, you have so many PC elitist complaining on here about how consoles are bringing the PC's down, or whatever whine they have of the week.
If I wanted the PC experience, than I will simply play Steam on my PC. And based on the poll that exactly what an enormous amount of people on this site. This is a PC centric site so imagine what this pole would look like on other sites like IGN.
I'm not even a massive Valve fan. I haven't even played any of the Half Lifes.Dragonbums said:
Look: I don't like Ubisoft. I kind of hate Ubisoft, really. But when someone whinges about how evil they are because of "the awful DRM", I pounce like a tiger and point out that they abandoned it a year ago.
I'm not a fan of EA either. But I wrote a freaking review on this site of Origin, and gave in an A-.
Why?
Because the truth matters to me.
And saying that Valve doesn't do games anymore and is only notable a digital download retailer/hardware designer is a complete, utter, blatant and brazen lie.
And you know that too.
Also, if you seriously think that Valve isn't getting backlash on their actions, come back when there's a "Are You Hyped About Half Life 3" thread. You'd think the entire site consisted of emotionally shattered, passive-aggressive zombies.