Steam Machine Maker Says Other Companies "Just Don't Get It"

[AzrealMaximillion]

The Steam Machine is just a PC with a nifty case and pre-loaded with a specialized OS. Other then that it's still just a PC and can do anything a regular PC with the same hardware can do.

That hasn't been confirmed. You and I don't know that it can say, go on Google Chrome and surf the web. Considering that the Steam OS can't do that, imma say it can't. It's a PC lite.

You might need to add some extra peripherals like a mouse and keyboard, and maybe install a different OS, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that.

I don't think being able to install different OS' on the Steam Machines has been confirmed either.

You already have a Windows PC with a sizable Steam library? You can easily hook it up tho you TV? Then why the hell are you considering a Steam Machine, it's obviously not meant for people like you. (Well it can stream games but who'd use that).

This seems like a counter intuitive statement that answers itself.

At this moment with the points I just made, I find it pretty hard for anyone to make a case to consider buying a Steam Machine.

 

[Do4600]

The obvious market niche is the hardcore gamer that's grown up and taken on adult responsibilities and relationships. They can't reasonably justify an extra big HD monitor for their gaming habit on the PC, but neither can they justify leaving their multi-purpose, quality PC connected to the family's TV because the kids need to do their homework on it, and it gets used for looking up recipes or the like while the family watches TV.

What you just described was a PC. That's it, just a PC with $30 of cable and some free software. Kids do their homework on Ipads. Recipes are looked up on smartphones. What you are describing is a world of 10 years ago. The difference is the shape of the box, that's it. Who buys an extra big HD monitor? That's a what a TV is. Actually an extra large HD monitor is a TV. It's totally interchangeable, and there's no reason to have "television service" either, also one person can use the computer while the computer is also playing something on the big screen.

 

[sXeth]

Yeah, they seem to get the idea that they're trying to build a new userbase with this thing. I still don't think they'll make too many inroads against the console-but-not-PC masses unless they can get these things into Best Buy/Walmart/etc though. I'd be willing to bet the people floating around online PC specialty stores are still the existing PC Gamer base.

 

[viranimus]

... But it also reveals that even among the people who are making them, there's no consensus on what the actual intent is - if there even is some specific "goal" at all.

And that equally describes those of the Glorious PC Master race who buy for bleeding edge PC gaming. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So too is the demands of PC gaming invariably are going to be dictated by the hardware goals of console gaming. .Not even on purely economic levels, Fundamental design will be dictated. Even if one offers capacity for greater complexity, the disparity of that complexity is inevitably tethered by the levels of technical capabilities and available design education present in the market and wieldable by the game designers. There may be a gap of variance, but the two are forever indirectly linked. You can only advance what is known about game development so much and even that comes in incremental, trial and error stages.

So buying for any obscenely bleeding edge horsepower in ANY format is buying to obtain a solution without an actual problem.

 

[grimallq]

That hasn't been confirmed. You and I don't know that it can say, go on Google Chrome and surf the web. Considering that the Steam OS can't do that, imma say it can't. It's a PC lite.

I don't think being able to install different OS' on the Steam Machines has been confirmed either.

I get the feeling you are treating the Steam Machine like just another console with hardware/software features locked to strict Valve specifications. The mere existence of 14 different manufacturers, each producing at least 2 different Steam machine models, should suggest otherwise. Or, you know, the fact you can install SteamOS on a regular PC and have it function as a Steam Machine.

I'll say it again: Steam machine is just a custom pre-built PC with Steam logo slapped on its case, pre-loaded with SteamOS and bundled with Steam gamepad. Nothing more, nothing less. Some normal PC functionality might be missing "out-of-the-box" due to SteamOS limitations. I can't exactly comment on that since I can't check SteamOS myself yet (no AMD drivers). But nothing stops the owner from installing a different OS on a Steam Machine.

Want proof of that? Check the specs on the proposed Digital Storm Bolt 2 Steam Machine, it comes with SteamOS and Windows in dualboot.

This seems like a counter intuitive statement that answers itself.

At this moment with the points I just made, I find it pretty hard for anyone to make a case to consider buying a Steam Machine.

Ok, I might have misspoke a bit on that issue. I'll reiterate.

You already have a gaming PC you can hook up to your TV. You don't need and/or want a second PC to stick into your living room. Fine, I can see why the Steam Machine won't appeal to you.

I'm in the same situation. I've already got a custom built PC (mostly by myself) with a good monitor. I don't want to hook it up to my TV. I don't really want, or need, to have a Steam Machine. Plus, if I ever wanted one, I'd build one myself. I might buy the Steam Gamepad. I might also try the SteamOS once it's compatible with AMD GPU's, but that's that.

I'm not saying I think Steam Machines will become wildly successful, that they're some kind of console-killers. No, they probably won't. The cheaper models might be picked up by people that want to do some PC gaming in their living room and for some reason can't use a normal PC. The expensive model might be bought by the kind of people who already are buying overpriced brand name PCs. There's also all the people that'll build their own custom Steam Machines. None of these groups seem very big to me.

Valve is giving us, the consumers, another option. I also see the Steam Machines as a way for Valve to coax software and game developers to make more Linux compatible stuff, and maybe put some burn on Windows.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

So many unanswered questions. And Valve being Valve, they'll stay unanswered for a long time yet.

If Gabe's charity event reaches it's mark, he will host an AMA. Perhaps someone will ask him this (or a similar) question at the event?

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

It seems to me that Valve don't actually get how consoles are supposed to work. They've basically just made a new line of PCs instead of a console. I can't exactly see the Steam Machine going anywhere significant.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I get the feeling you are treating the Steam Machine like just another console with hardware/software features locked to strict Valve specifications. The mere existence of 14 different manufacturers, each producing at least 2 different Steam machine models, should suggest otherwise. Or, you know, the fact you can install SteamOS on a regular PC and have it function as a Steam Machine.

I'll say it again: Steam machine is just a custom pre-built PC with Steam logo slapped on its case, pre-loaded with SteamOS and bundled with Steam gamepad. Nothing more, nothing less. Some normal PC functionality might be missing "out-of-the-box" due to SteamOS limitations. I can't exactly comment on that since I can't check SteamOS myself yet (no AMD drivers). But nothing stops the owner from installing a different OS on a Steam Machine.

Want proof of that? Check the specs on the proposed Digital Storm Bolt 2 Steam Machine, it comes with SteamOS and Windows in dualboot.

Here's the thing. The reason I'm looking at this as a console rather than a PC is because that's how Valve marketed the Steam Machines. They said this was an attempt to get Steam into the living rooms. That's pretty much console territory. It loses in that category because it's not competitively priced. A lot of arguments for the Steam Machines $500 models are ignoring the fact that the PS4 is $400 and the price of the PS4 is one of the major reasons that the PS4 is outselling the Xbox One.

If you want me to look at these as PCs, they automatically lose even harder and here's why. The fact that there are 14 different manufacturers and upgradeable parts makes the Steam Machines no different from PC in that case. And if you look at the specs of the revealed you can still build a PC yourself for much better price value.

Now here's a third argument that people are not considering and I want you and anyone reading this to mull over this one. Compared to PCs that you buy pre-built from stores the Steam Machines still are overpriced if you look at it as a PC.

For example, the Lenovo Erazer X700 Gaming PC is $2,500 in Canadian Dollars(where I live.) Compared to the Digital Storm Bolt II that you mentioned before which is $2584 in USD but $2825 where I live. The Lenovo comes with more to it for its price. Twice the storage though with an only slightly less good graphics card. Though an AMD Radeon HD 8950 is still pretty damn good.

At the end of the day the Lenovo is the better buy because it comes with the full functionality of a PC play I can spend money on wireless HDMI to make it connect to my TV to utilize Steam's Big Picture mode and still have nearly $200 saved.

The Steam Machines aren't competitively priced in the PC market either. They are also not being made by Valve, but by outside manufacturers so in order to buy upgrade parts for the Steam Machines people will have to go to the same place that Valve said they were trying to have people avoid going to. A computer shop where they will be confused as to what to buy of they are new to PCs. Thus sticking the right back into the pricing control of the manufacturers who will probably charge more for Steam Box versions of the parts because they can. This also kind of kiboshes the whole "making it easier to get into PC gaming" argument that the Steam Machines used because I think that costing less would help people get into PC gaming most effectively. When the Steam Machines can't even compete in terms of price with marked up pre builts in Best Buy, it begs the question "what the hell was the point?"

This seems like a counter intuitive statement that answers itself.

At this moment with the points I just made, I find it pretty hard for anyone to make a case to consider buying a Steam Machine.

Ok, I might have misspoke a bit on that issue. I'll reiterate.

You already have a gaming PC you can hook up to your TV. You don't need and/or want a second PC to stick into your living room. Fine, I can see why the Steam Machine won't appeal to you.

I'm in the same situation. I've already got a custom built PC (mostly by myself) with a good monitor. I don't want to hook it up to my TV. I don't really want, or need, to have a Steam Machine. Plus, if I ever wanted one, I'd build one myself. I might buy the Steam Gamepad. I might also try the SteamOS once it's compatible with AMD GPU's, but that's that.

I'm not saying I think Steam Machines will become wildly successful, that they're some kind of console-killers. No, they probably won't. The cheaper models might be picked up by people that want to do some PC gaming in their living room and for some reason can't use a normal PC. The expensive model might be bought by the kind of people who already are buying overpriced brand name PCs. There's also all the people that'll build their own custom Steam Machines. None of these groups seem very big to me.

Valve is giving us, the consumers, another option. I also see the Steam Machines as a way for Valve to coax software and game developers to make more Linux compatible stuff, and maybe put some burn on Windows.[/quote]

Now here's the argument I really want to tackle.

Frankly, Gabe Newell has been implying that the Steam Machines are an attempt to attack Windows' OS monopoly on the PC platform. Here's the problem with released a Linux based box that's frankly a little overpriced across the board. MS could care less about this. At the end of the day while Streaming has been announced for the Steam Machines we know that streaming games isn't up to snuff quite yet (OnLive anyone?). That being said the "getting developers into making games for Linux" argument relies on the assumption that most developers are interested in developing for Linux. The fact is that they aren't because Linux doesn't have a major install base. Right now the Steam Machines can only natively run around 206 games out of Valves 3000+ catalog.

Many of the games that brought players to Steam are Windows only. So as such it's safe to say the majority of the games that brought people to Steam won't be available on the Steam Machines until support is added by the developers. Which won't happen until the market is big enough to justify spending the extra money to port/built for Linux. Which won't happen unless more games are added. And the circle goes on in a similar fashion as the 3rd party support problems that the Wii U faces as it struggles to move units.

So while Valve is giving us another option as consumers, that doesn't mean that its being implemented very well at all. The Ouya gave us another option as well and look how that turned out.

Simply giving consumers options isn't good enough if those options give us more reasons to not choose them then to choose them.

 

[Dragonbums]

If other manufacturers don't "get" what Steam machines are all about then it stands to reason that it's Valves job to make those companies understand.

 

[grimallq]

snip

Ok, let's get some things straight first.

I've mentioned the Bolt II only as an example of a Steam Machine running Windows out of the box. It was to illustrate the fact that there are no software restrictions on the Steam Machine. Personally I think the Bolt II, and all the other hideously expensive models, are grossly overpriced pieces of fluff, to say it mildly. There'll still be rich idiots who'll buy these, to each their own.

About Steam Machine upgrades. Here you go again treating them like consoles with proprietary parts. They're NOT. Steam Machines are PCs, they use bog standard PC components. Unlike say Microsoft's Xbox 360, there's nobody telling you that you can use only one brand of hard drives, with Steam stickers on them, and pay 50$ extra for the privilege. You can use any kind of compatible component you want, that's the point of an open (hardware) platform. Seriously, with arguments like these I'm beginning to wonder if you understand how the PC platform works.

Granted some of these manufacturers might introduce guaranties that require (or at least encourage) the customer to use their parts and technical support. Which doesn't mean they have to.

Speaking about prices, here I agree with you. If any of those Steam Machine manufacturers seriously though about competing with consoles in the living room, they should make models costing at most around 400$. Of course there is one problem here. Console makers can sell their hardware below costs since they can recoup those losses from game sale royalties. PC (and Steam Machine) makers can't, without Valve subsidizing the production. I can't exactly see that happening.

For a long time now Valve has been arguing for an open gaming platform. The Steam Machine is their attempt at introducing one. The hardware portion of Steam Machine model looks extremely shaky commercially for now. But we have to remember that the main component of Valve's open platform is the software, the SteamOS. And on the software side there is a huge potential user install base, all the people who might install the SteamOS on their regular PCs. Obviously not a lot of people will, but some might.

Valve are sticking to their principles here. The Steam Machine is an experiment. While the hardware portions seems to be failing even before it's released, the software might still shake up the industry a bit. There are already game developers stating they want to make Linux compatible stuff, and some of them are stating the SteamOS as a reason.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/33438/dice-says-it-will-support-linux-could-see-battlefield-4-on-steamos/index.html

 

[Do4600]

I'm sorry, if your kids are trying to do their homework on an ipad, I fucking pity them. That borders on cruel and unusual punishment. Look up crap, sure. But actually do the work?

I don't have kids, but I pity people that do have kids, and I'm telling you they do their homework on Ipads because I have seen them do it.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So too is the demands of PC gaming invariably are going to be dictated by the hardware goals of console gaming. .Not even on purely economic levels, Fundamental design will be dictated. Even if one offers capacity for greater complexity, the disparity of that complexity is inevitably tethered by the levels of technical capabilities and available design education present in the market and wieldable by the game designers. There may be a gap of variance, but the two are forever indirectly linked. You can only advance what is known about game development so much and even that comes in incremental, trial and error stages.

So buying for any obscenely bleeding edge horsepower in ANY format is buying to obtain a solution without an actual problem.

That's not entirely true, it's certainly tethered but that tether is more elastic than you give it credit. It would be true if all of the games on PC were built for console or if PC exclusives or PC versions of console games were not able to use those expanded capabilities. However, that has not yet happened and as long as MMOs, grand strategies and games made by eccentric millionaires continue to use and demand those capabilities there will be a market for parts more powerful than those offered in consoles. It will depend on the goals of the consumer not the console maker.

 

[mindfaQ]

This man is correct. It certainly does not hurt to have 1-2 high performance machines in the lineups, but they will be irrelevant for the biggest part of the community. Their producers should definitely not market those high price machines as their flagships^^.

 

[viranimus]

That's not entirely true, it's certainly tethered but that tether is more elastic than you give it credit. It would be true if all of the games on PC were built for console or if PC exclusives or PC versions of console games were not able to use those expanded capabilities. However, that has not yet happened and as long as MMOs, grand strategies and games made by eccentric millionaires continue to use and demand those capabilities there will be a market for parts more powerful than those offered in consoles. It will depend on the goals of the consumer not the console maker.

Sorry, I think you underestimated the scope of what I was going for.

To give a practical example. Lets say this is 1996 and the big dog on the gaming block is the Super nintendo. PC gaming is just getting into its own Isometric period with releases like Diablo.

Now plop an original Xbox into the hands of developers and tell them to get to work. How long do you think it would take for those same developers that are still maximizing how to work with 2d sprites and just tinkering with 3d, to start producing games properly utilizing all the capacity the hardware has and reproduce visuals akin to some of its better looking titles like Doom 3, Fable, Ninja Gaiden, etc.

Imagine a world where no one has thought of Bloom because there was never a need to "mask" uglier textures because the horsepower needed for larger texture maps had always been available. If the hardware ceiling is removed how long does it take for people to learn the same lessons that had to be learned by trial and error anyway?

That is the point I am making. While leapfrogging an entire console generation in that example might seem unfair, what amounts to a 5 year technological jump really isn't for the point of this comparison. It stands to reason that someone today might be able and willing to throw enough money at building a PC that would result in the same base technological on par with a console developed five years from now might look like. A 6000$ Steambox BETTER have the horsepower inside to remain on par that long to justify that sort of pricetag. That is what is being meant by these designers who just don't get it. They are trying to aim for a mark of longevity that is impossible to hit because it is impossible to predict the types of technological needs that will take off.

 

[Do4600]

That's not entirely true, it's certainly tethered but that tether is more elastic than you give it credit. It would be true if all of the games on PC were built for console or if PC exclusives or PC versions of console games were not able to use those expanded capabilities. However, that has not yet happened and as long as MMOs, grand strategies and games made by eccentric millionaires continue to use and demand those capabilities there will be a market for parts more powerful than those offered in consoles. It will depend on the goals of the consumer not the console maker.

Sorry, I think you underestimated the scope of what I was going for.

To give a practical example. Lets say this is 1996 and the big dog on the gaming block is the Super nintendo. PC gaming is just getting into its own Isometric period with releases like Diablo.

Now plop an original Xbox into the hands of developers and tell them to get to work. How long do you think it would take for those same developers that are still maximizing how to work with 2d sprites and just tinkering with 3d, to start producing games properly utilizing all the capacity the hardware has and reproduce visuals akin to some of its better looking titles like Doom 3, Fable, Ninja Gaiden, etc.

Imagine a world where no one has thought of Bloom because there was never a need to "mask" uglier textures because the horsepower needed for larger texture maps had always been available. If the hardware ceiling is removed how long does it take for people to learn the same lessons that had to be learned by trial and error anyway?

That is the point I am making. While leapfrogging an entire console generation in that example might seem unfair, what amounts to a 5 year technological jump really isn't for the point of this comparison. It stands to reason that someone today might be able and willing to throw enough money at building a PC that would result in the same base technological on par with a console developed five years from now might look like. A 6000$ Steambox BETTER have the horsepower inside to remain on par that long to justify that sort of pricetag. That is what is being meant by these designers who just don't get it. They are trying to aim for a mark of longevity that is impossible to hit because it is impossible to predict the types of technological needs that will take off.

It just might. I built a PC in 2008 for about $2,500 and it's only really showing it's age now by not being able to keep pace with an i7 on Planetside 2. A $6000 computer is....ridiculous, at that price it's much closer to a DNA sequencing work station. Theoretically with enough power you don't need architecture because you would be able to emulate it. A super computer from 10 years ago will still be able to play the most advanced video games in 10 years if you write the software to run it. I think the limiting factor in that $6000 Steam Box is that it's going to be locked in DirectX 11 architecture and nobody is going to take the time to write the software that would allow 4 Nvidia Titans, 128 Gbs of Ram and 12 cores at 3.5 ghz to emulate a machine of half that speed in Directx 12. The industry would have to outpace Moore's "suggestion" and adopt high resolution ray tracing and high resolution voxel models before that machine would go obsolete.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

snip

Ok, let's get some things straight first.

I've mentioned the Bolt II only as an example of a Steam Machine running Windows out of the box. It was to illustrate the fact that there are no software restrictions on the Steam Machine.

That's only evidence of one of the many Steam Machines. With Alienware announcing that their model is not upgradable, then it shows we're going to have to look at the Steam Machines on a case by case level. That being said the Bolt II running Windows out of the box isn't representative of all Steam Machines.

About Steam Machine upgrades. Here you go again treating them like consoles with proprietary parts. They're NOT. Steam Machines are PCs, they use bog standard PC components. Unlike say Microsoft's Xbox 360, there's nobody telling you that you can use only one brand of hard drives, with Steam stickers on them, and pay 50$ extra for the privilege. You can use any kind of compatible component you want, that's the point of an open (hardware) platform. Seriously, with arguments like these I'm beginning to wonder if you understand how the PC platform works.

You're argument only looks to confirm bare bones function of a PC. If your argument is going to consist of "the fact that PC parts are being used makes it a PC" then its a weak argument to begin with. Can the Steam Machines do all of the functions of a PC? If you can't answer yes to that, then you're ignoring a few key facts.

One, this whole Steam Machine idea was to have Valve compete with consoles in the first place.

Two, these machines can not do what a PC can do outside of gaming. It'll have a bare bones internet browser and apps for things like Netflix and Facebook, just like the consoles on the market do, but you will not be able to say, run a partition on the second hard drive or install another internet browser among many other things a PC can do that consoles can't.

Three, these machines were made to make PC gaming easier to get into than standard PC gaming. If the machines were just PCs as you keep saying, then what's the point of this whole thing?

For a long time now Valve has been arguing for an open gaming platform. The Steam Machine is their attempt at introducing one. The hardware portion of Steam Machine model looks extremely shaky commercially for now. But we have to remember that the main component of Valve's open platform is the software, the SteamOS. And on the software side there is a huge potential user install base, all the people who might install the SteamOS on their regular PCs. Obviously not a lot of people will, but some might.

The user base is largely comprised of Windows users and people with Steam libraries that don't include a lot of Linux games. That's the Steam OS' biggest hurdle. And with Valve adding game streaming to the Steam Machines, one has to wonder if that will just allow people to continue making Windows only games knowing that they'll just be streamed on the Steam Machine.

Valve frankly has just added a reason for the Linux only goal to no longer exist. If the game streaming isn't up to snuff, it will be over time. Either way, they just gave all developers a reason to not do a Linux port of any game.

Valve are sticking to their principles here. The Steam Machine is an experiment. While the hardware portions seems to be failing even before it's released, the software might still shake up the industry a bit. There are already game developers stating they want to make Linux compatible stuff, and some of them are stating the SteamOS as a reason.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/33438/dice-says-it-will-support-linux-could-see-battlefield-4-on-steamos/index.html

As I said before, Valve keeps adding features to Steam and the Steam Machines that keep shooting their plans down.

Steam Big Picture mode removes the need to buy a Steam Machine to PC gamers. Even a wireless HDMI set up is cheaper than a Steam Machine of the cheapest prices.

And the game streaming features of the Steam Machines make the Linux platform no longer a necessity to port for.

That'd be like if the Xbox One allowed for people with a Smart TV to use the TV's motion control tech to access its menus instead of the Xbox Kinect. It'd make an integral part of the console pointless while still giving you the product.

If Valve wants this to work they have to stop kneecapping their own product.

 

[grimallq]

That's only evidence of one of the many Steam Machines. With Alienware announcing that their model is not upgradable, then it shows we're going to have to look at the Steam Machines on a case by case level. That being said the Bolt II running Windows out of the box isn't representative of all Steam Machines.

It shows that the possibility exists. Alienware, being stupid greedy pricks they are, demonstrate that some manufacturers may impose hardware limitations of their own. On that note I wonder how are they going to classify and market their machines, sealing a PC is sort of illegal where I live. And of course it's Alienware, their Steambox is going to be much more expensive than regular PC with identical parts. with the cheapest model hovering around a 1000$.

So yeah, a manufacturer might impose hardware restrictions on their Steambox, which goes completely counter to Valve's intentions for the platform. Looks like Valve's license does not prevent their partners from being pricks, might be an oversight. Maybe someone will even find a way to prevent the user from wiping the hard drive and installing Windos (or whatever). That probably will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Still, it's the manufacturers messing with the platform, Valve does not restrict the users from modifing the hardware or software.

Two, these machines can not do what a PC can do outside of gaming. It'll have a bare bones internet browser and apps for things like Netflix and Facebook, just like the consoles on the market do, but you will not be able to say, run a partition on the second hard drive or install another internet browser among many other things a PC can do that consoles can't.

I'm still wondering where exactly are you getting these ideas from. First party functionality of SteamOS is limited, but SteamOS is just modified Debian Linux. Except for the Steam client, the overlay and some custom drivers it's Open Source. You can freely install any piece of Debian software on SteamOS. Including, but not limited to: drivers, alternate browsers, office suits, non-steam linux games, Windows games via Wine, ect. It's not exactly recommended. Valve themselves say that if you want a Linux desktop you should probably use Ubuntu. SteamOS is optimized for games, but not limited to games.

Here are some relevant quotes form Valve's SteamOS page and FAQ:
{quote}Most of all, it is an open Linux platform that leaves you in full control. You can take charge of your system and install new software or content that you want.[/quote]

Q: Is SteamOS open source?
All of the base operating system components are open source. The Steam client itself is proprietary, as are some proprietary third party drivers.

Q: What software runs on SteamOS?
SteamOS is designed to run Steam and Steam games. It also provides a desktop mode which can run regular Linux applications. SteamOS makes use of the standard APT package manager for software updates; you can add third-party sources to your subscribed repositories to gain access to more applications. SteamOS currently provides a limited set of packages, but many Debian wheezy packages work fine on SteamOS. We plan to make a wider variety of packages vailable directly from the SteamOS repositories over time.

I suppose it also says that installing SteamOS will wipe the computer (probably meant the physical hard drive, doesn't exactly explain what it does to systems with multiple HDD's), but that's just a function of their current automated beta installer. I'm sure it can be configured to allow extra partitions and multiboot functionality.

So, anyone can freely develop, distribute and install third party software on SteamOS. What else do you want as proof, Gabe Newell publicly saying that you could run Origin on SteamOS if EA ever makes a linux client? Oh right, he already did.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131393-Gabe-Newell-Opens-the-Door-To-Origin-On-SteamOS

Speaking about Steam Machine hardware. We kind of agreed that Steam Machine use standard PC components. And like I mentioned above they run standard PC software by default: a slightly modified, mostly Open Source, Debian Linux version. This means they are PCs. The user can freely change any of their parts or add new ones, unless somebody deliberately cripples that option. Users can also install other PC software, like Windows, if they want to. Here's an interview with Gabe Newell where he says exactly that.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852144/gabe-newell-interview-steam-box-future-of-gaming

That?ll be a Linux box, [and] if you want to install Windows you can. We?re not going to make it hard. This is not some locked box by any stretch of the imagination.

These are all the options a Steam Machine was meant to have, and they are missing only if the manufacturer deliberately blocks them. Yes I'm pissed with Alienware for screwing with the open platform model. The Alienware rep said it himself. "If you want a configurable Steam Machine buy our X51 and install SteamOS". It's like he's saying that the only major difference between their Steambox and their regular gaming desktop is the fact they sealed the case to stop users from modifying the hardware.

The fact Alienware had to specifically announce their models will be sealed suggests they will be an exception from the norm.

There's one more thing I'd like to clarify.

And the game streaming features of the Steam Machines make the Linux platform no longer a necessity to port for.

Actually no. It seems to me you think that SteamOS streaming function is another cloud gaming service like Gaikai. It's not. While some of these services might make SteamOS clients (or there already are working linux clients that can be run on SteamOS), the SteamOS streaming function works similarly to Nvidia Shield. It streams Windows games running on a second Windows computer located in the same apartment through LAN/Wi-Fi. In essence it's a glorified PC<->TV HDMI connection. Probably less hardware limited then the Shield (which requires a specific Nvidia GPU in the PC). That's why I was dismissive of the function earlier. While neat it's mostly a gimmick. If you want to play more games on SteamOS (without using a second PC) they have to be ported to Linux.

Which is IMO kind of the whole point. It's a way to promote Linux as an open gaming platform, both hardware and software-wise, as opposed to fully proprietary consoles and the increasingly locked nature of MacOS and Windows.

Many people treat Steam Machines like consoles. Fine, they kind of are by definition. A device optimized for gaming meant to be set up in the living room. The various pre-built Steam branded models will probably be (or already are) marketed like consoles, maybe even set up to compete with regular consoles. I'm not defending their economic viability. I see plenty of reasons why the whole concept might crash and burn. High price point of even the simplest models and currently limited Linux gaming library are some of them. Limited non-gaming functionality is not one of those reasons. They are living room gaming machines that can function as regular PCs.

My main beef with your arguments is that from the beginning you were assuming and outright claiming that Steam Machines will by functionally limited, in both hardware and software, just like regular consoles.

Linux gaming won't take off without some big industry names backing it up. Valve is doing just that with SteamOS. And like I mentioned earlier some big name game developers (DICE) are already considering porting their big AAA (Battlefield 4) titles to Linux because of Valve's involvement.