Steam Machines

[Sniper Team 4]

If this thing has Half-LIfe 3 for launch and the game won't be on any other system, I will highly consider getting it. If it's as easy to set up, figure out, and use as my PS3 and 360 and has HL3, consider it sold. Otherwise, I'm afraid I just can't get interested enough. Entirely possible they can change my mind, but at the moment I'm just shrugging and going, "Huh. That's nice."

 

[fix-the-spade]

I'd beg to disagree: http://www.newzoo.com/press-releases/newzoo-announces-new-report-and-projects-global-games-market-to-grow-6-to-70-4bn-in-2013/

The graphic immediately above that predicts that PC downloads and boxed games will only make nine percent of that total market, the other thirty percent coming from casual gaming and MMOs.

That more or less agrees with the assertion that for big boxed sale games PC is now the minor market, there are anomalies (specifically Dice, Valve, Relic and Blizzard) but most developers and publishers expect the major sales to come from console players.

I'm not sure classifying MMOs as a thing by itself is entirely fair as it skews the figures against PC games somewhat, but it also holds true that MMO markets are separate from the annual/bienniel triple A release cycle and follow different trends.

 

[sushkis2]

Just think about it, PS3 had about 512 mb of RAM, and for the same games,(say, for example, Fallout 3) to be played on Windows, you needed at least 2GB of RAM. Crazy ain't it?

That was mainly due to the OS taking up about half of those 2GB. The tradeoff is that when you exit the game, you can do work stuff. Also, you shouldn't compare PS3 releases to WIndows ones. For starters, the textures are higher, the draw distance and clutter are better as someone has already pointed out, we have more graphics-intensive lighting/shadowing, tessellation, etc. Basically, all the goods you're getting on the PS4, we've been running it. Which is why we have higher requirements.

A gaming-only Linux distro sounds nice, and hopefully Steam Machines + SteamOS will convince devs to start building Linux ports. What I'm more concerned about are my old games, and the stuff I bought off GOG. Other than the streaming feature advertised, will they build emulators into the OS for those old Windows/DOS games?

I get your point, but think about it, by releasing SteamOS, Valve are theoretically putting that tradeoff out of the equation. My point is - why worry about the ever expensive hardware upgrades, when you are presented with an opportunity to squeeze some more juice with a more sensible software setup? Even though, they have yet to prove themselves, if they can deliver on their promise. I, like many people have high hopes for Valve.

Regarding your old games - you don't seriously think of completely abandoning Windows are you? Looks like SteamOS' sole purpose is to get you a great gaming experience, not necessarily run any program you desire. How will you go on the internet, or write documents, or whatever else non gaming related? Hence, such opportunities open like Steam machines, if you're willing to dish out for it or if the machines end up far more superior than your PC, or multibooting, if you are satisfied with your rig and wish to equip it with SteamOS for gaming. I don't think there would actually be people who would actually abandon Windows altogether, if they do absolutely anything other than gaming from dawn til dusk.

There problem solved, keep Windows, and you keep all of your GOG games.

I think I have noticed a pattern in behavior surrounding the announcement of this, and many other new devices/OS/whatever. Whenever something new gets announced, take for example, the Nvidia Shield, people start questioning if it can run things other than what it is supposed to. Hence the streaming service - was it really necessary? Of course, I may be 100% wrong, but I think, it is because of this catering to some truly absurd needs, as in wasting all of those finances and manpower, to achieving that function, just for the sake of people being able to play Battlefield 3 or whatever a couple of feet away from their PC on a teeny tiny screen (which in turn could have been put to better use, like, say, core software R&D). PLEASE, don't ask Valve to have SteamOS or whatever else new product do what it isn't supposed to. Look at XBONE, look how laughable it looked after all of those announcements of those non-gaming functions, like TV, Skype and that fantasy football nonsense.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

One simple question has to be asked about this offering from Valve. Have they reversed their anti consumer policies and cease duping people into willingly abandoning money with nothing in exchange for it? Unless the answer to that question is an emphatic yes, every single other thing about it is 100% completely irrelevant. It is nothing but the proliferation of the cancer of the industry. Nothing else need be pondered or stated yet it still bears repeating it seems regardless of which company of the moment is trying to push the envelope in the war of attrition this time. It is not tolerable in any circumstance or under any conditions. Not from Microsoft, Not from EA, Not from Sony, Not from Valve. Not from ANYONE. EVER.

Let us put it another way. In a historical context, in the future people will look back at this point in history with what the masses impose upon everyone in humiliated smugness much the way people today look at what the smokers of 30-200 years ago built up through their reckless funding and manipulated decision making.



If they are discontinuing their core philosophy of anti consumer/industry behavior, then and only then the potential, merits, and values of such a potential device can reasonably be considered.

The greatest shame of it all is that sadly no great epiphany comes without being built upon the manipulation, exploitation and misfortune of so many. It will one day come because the model being pushed is one incapable of sustaining itself and can only end it annihilating itself with maximum collateral damage. It has happened so many times before in history and those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Hey buddy, might want to tuck that shirt in, your irrational hatred of Steam is showing.

Seriously though, perhaps it's obvious to you but I'm not sure anyone else gets what you mean by "anti-consumer policies" or "duping people into willingly abandoning their money". It helps to elaborate when shitting on a system that most people like so that there's a chance that they'll take you seriously, if only so they can refute your viewpoint.

 

[lacktheknack]

One simple question has to be asked about this offering from Valve. Have they reversed their anti consumer policies and cease duping people into willingly abandoning money with nothing in exchange for it? Unless the answer to that question is an emphatic yes, every single other thing about it is 100% completely irrelevant. It is nothing but the proliferation of the cancer of the industry. Nothing else need be pondered or stated yet it still bears repeating it seems regardless of which company of the moment is trying to push the envelope in the war of attrition this time. It is not tolerable in any circumstance or under any conditions. Not from Microsoft, Not from EA, Not from Sony, Not from Valve. Not from ANYONE. EVER.

Utterly false and single-minded.

SteamOS will have a major effect in translating PC gaming as a whole to the Linux platform. That alone makes these exciting times, regardless of what you think of Valve's consumer policy on the Steam platform itself.

 

[lacktheknack]

Hey buddy, might want to tuck that shirt in, your irrational hatred of Steam is showing.

Seriously though, perhaps it's obvious to you but I'm not sure anyone else gets what you mean by "anti-consumer policies" or "duping people into willingly abandoning their money". It helps to elaborate when shitting on a system that most people like so that there's a chance that they'll take you seriously, if only so they can refute your viewpoint.

This is just what he does. He's taken it upon himself to bear the cross of "consumer rights" to the exclusion of sanity and artist rights. He's got a right to it, he just doesn't get very many people following him on it. I will admit that he's pretty good at what he does, though.

His point for years is that since you're only purchasing a "license" that can be revoked at any time, Steam is pure evil. He doesn't seem to comprehend that I'm entirely OK with merely "renting" the games I get on Steam, because I get them for so cheap. If Valve wiped my library tomorrow with good reason, I'd be really annoyed, but it wouldn't be a massive loss of investment. I'd only want Tomb Raider, Skyrim and Civilization V back.

He does have a point in that these ARE just "rentals", which is why if I have a choice between gog.com (who actually sells you a copy to do what you want with) and Steam, I'll pick gog.com every time. But for when there is no crossover, I have no problem with paying a comparitively small amount for a license.

 

[rofltehcat]

I'm pretty stoked for the whole thing. I hope it'll be good but if it fails I can still use Windows at no loss. Valve is cemented into the PC gaming market so solidly that they won't budge even if this is a total flop.

 

[romxxii]

I get your point, but think about it, by releasing SteamOS, Valve are theoretically putting that tradeoff out of the equation. My point is - why worry about the ever expensive hardware upgrades, when you are presented with an opportunity to squeeze some more juice with a more sensible software setup? Even though, they have yet to prove themselves, if they can deliver on their promise. I, like many people have high hopes for Valve.

Yeah, I think we can agree that by stripping down the OS to its barest minimum and making it gaming-centric, we should see an upswing in performance for games. I don't think it will stop progress on the hardware, but that means the more affordable models will need to be replaced less often.

Regarding your old games - you don't seriously think of completely abandoning Windows are you? Looks like SteamOS' sole purpose is to get you a great gaming experience, not necessarily run any program you desire. How will you go on the internet, or write documents, or whatever else non gaming related? Hence, such opportunities open like Steam machines, if you're willing to dish out for it or if the machines end up far more superior than your PC, or multibooting, if you are satisfied with your rig and wish to equip it with SteamOS for gaming. I don't think there would actually be people who would actually abandon Windows altogether, if they do absolutely anything other than gaming from dawn til dusk.

A good number of people have long ago abandoned Windows to work exclusively with Linux distros. Unfortunately for me, I can't because my work requires Silverlight. As for why I'd want my old games to run on the SteamOS natively? I was thinking of building a mini-ITX LAN party/travel rig, and I was thinking of installing SteamOS on it exclusively. Streaming from my desktop is ok at home, but not when I travel to another location. Broadband isn't good enough in my country to support streaming across locations. Hence, the need to be able to run all my games natively.

PLEASE, don't ask Valve to have SteamOS or whatever else new product do what it isn't supposed to. Look at XBONE, look how laughable it looked after all of those announcements of those non-gaming functions, like TV, Skype and that fantasy football nonsense.

Valve doesn't have to do anything. Remember that Linux is a DIY platform. That means, so long as they keep it open, then some bloke out there is gonna come up with a Windows emulator that can fit my needs. Hell, I might even learn to program again and do it myself, if I'm so ever inclined.

 

[romxxii]

-insert insane rant here-

Hey buddy, might want to tuck that shirt in, your irrational hatred of Steam is showing.

Seriously though, perhaps it's obvious to you but I'm not sure anyone else gets what you mean by "anti-consumer policies" or "duping people into willingly abandoning their money". It helps to elaborate when shitting on a system that most people like so that there's a chance that they'll take you seriously, if only so they can refute your viewpoint.

He's probably talking about the fact that you're technically leasing, not owning, digital downloads. Probably uses it to justify his constant piracy of games from the publishers he mentioned. Otherwise, what the hell is he doing on a gaming website?

My guess is, he's a holdover from the time when Steam was still shit. That, or he has a shitty connection. Those are the usual suspects when it comes to irrational Steam hatred.

 

[lacktheknack]

A gaming-only Linux distro sounds nice, and hopefully Steam Machines + SteamOS will convince devs to start building Linux ports. What I'm more concerned about are my old games, and the stuff I bought off GOG. Other than the streaming feature advertised, will they build emulators into the OS for those old Windows/DOS games?

DOS games already have a free and high-quality emulator for Linux. It's called DOSBox, and it's exactly the same one that gog.com ships with each game.

http://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1

As you can see, they've already got a version tailored to the major distros, and you can bet your bottom that they'll have a SteamOS version up within days of launch. It may require a bit of fiddling to get the game working, but if you use the DOSBox options shipped with the game in question, it's far from impossible. Plus, a sudden spike of interest in SteamOS would probably get gog.com to make SteamOS-tailored versions of their games.

Old Windows games probably run fine with Wine.

But as someone else already said, you don't have to abandon your current Windows setup. Dual-booting is easy.

 

[romxxii]

DOS games already have a free and high-quality emulator for Linux. It's called DOSBox, and it's exactly the same one that gog.com ships with each game.

http://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1

As you can see, they've already got a version tailored to the major distros, and you can bet your bottom that they'll have a SteamOS version up within days of launch. It may require a bit of fiddling to get the game working, but if you use the DOSBox options shipped with the game in question, it's far from impossible. Plus, a sudden spike of interest in SteamOS would probably get gog.com to make SteamOS-tailored versions of their games.

Old Windows games probably run fine with Wine.

Well that solves all my problems. Thanks buddy!

But as someone else already said, you don't have to abandon your current Windows setup. Dual-booting is easy.

Dual-booting means re-partitioning; I'm too lazy to do that. In all seriousness though, I'm not abandoning my main desktop (not until obsolescence, anyway). I'm thinking of adopting SteamOS exclusively for a planned mini-ITX build.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

-insert insane rant here-

Hey buddy, might want to tuck that shirt in, your irrational hatred of Steam is showing.

Seriously though, perhaps it's obvious to you but I'm not sure anyone else gets what you mean by "anti-consumer policies" or "duping people into willingly abandoning their money". It helps to elaborate when shitting on a system that most people like so that there's a chance that they'll take you seriously, if only so they can refute your viewpoint.

He's probably talking about the fact that you're technically leasing, not owning, digital downloads. Probably uses it to justify his constant piracy of games from the publishers he mentioned. Otherwise, what the hell is he doing on a gaming website?

My guess is, he's a holdover from the time when Steam was still shit. That, or he has a shitty connection. Those are the usual suspects when it comes to irrational Steam hatred.

Why does that make him a pirate? It's not impossible that he just buys the game elsewhere or not at all if he's that against it. But maybe we shouldn't talk about someone in the third person like this anyway

Hey buddy, might want to tuck that shirt in, your irrational hatred of Steam is showing.

Seriously though, perhaps it's obvious to you but I'm not sure anyone else gets what you mean by "anti-consumer policies" or "duping people into willingly abandoning their money". It helps to elaborate when shitting on a system that most people like so that there's a chance that they'll take you seriously, if only so they can refute your viewpoint.

This is just what he does. He's taken it upon himself to bear the cross of "consumer rights" to the exclusion of sanity and artist rights. He's got a right to it, he just doesn't get very many people following him on it. I will admit that he's pretty good at what he does, though.

His point for years is that since you're only purchasing a "license" that can be revoked at any time, Steam is pure evil. He doesn't seem to comprehend that I'm entirely OK with merely "renting" the games I get on Steam, because I get them for so cheap. If Valve wiped my library tomorrow with good reason, I'd be really annoyed, but it wouldn't be a massive loss of investment. I'd only want Tomb Raider, Skyrim and Civilization V back.

He does have a point in that these ARE just "rentals", which is why if I have a choice between gog.com (who actually sells you a copy to do what you want with) and Steam, I'll pick gog.com every time. But for when there is no crossover, I have no problem with paying a comparitively small amount for a license.

That, and I can't imagine a situation where Valve would see it viable outside of plain going bankrupt to cut off service to the games for the shitstorm that would occur, and (not really a good defense for Steam but oh well) it's hardly morally objectionable to pirate a game that you've paid for if you lost access to it.

I've said this elsewhere, but the difference IMO between Valve and other corporations like EA and whatnot is that they don't pull anywhere near as much shit that other corps do, despite technically being allowed to. For example, Steam is notorious when it comes to refunding purchases (not re-selling btw), but they've never threatened to ban someone's account for asking for a refund they were PROMISED. I imagine Valve wouldn't be held in such high regard by most people if it abused it's power as much as some of the other players.

 

[romxxii]

But on the corporate side, the debate has been over for almost a decade, and consoles won. It wasn't even close.

I'd beg to disagree: http://www.newzoo.com/press-releases/newzoo-announces-new-report-and-projects-global-games-market-to-grow-6-to-70-4bn-in-2013/

The image you're using is a bit misleading: here's another one, which subdivides it into per segment:

As you can clearly see, the per-screen 39% gets collapsed to 21% MMO, 9% social, and a measly 9% for non-MMO, non-social (i.e. "core"), PC games. Conversely, Entertainment Screen, Floating Screen, and Personal Screen all get smushed and re-grouped into 43% console and 18% mobile. Even if you add the MMO to the 9% for boxed PC downloads, you only get 30%. So yeah, unless you're willing to be grouped with your Facebook friends who keep spamming you Farmville requests, then consoles have definitively won.

 

[romxxii]

Spoiler: snip

-insert insane rant here-

Hey buddy, might want to tuck that shirt in, your irrational hatred of Steam is showing.

Seriously though, perhaps it's obvious to you but I'm not sure anyone else gets what you mean by "anti-consumer policies" or "duping people into willingly abandoning their money". It helps to elaborate when shitting on a system that most people like so that there's a chance that they'll take you seriously, if only so they can refute your viewpoint.

He's probably talking about the fact that you're technically leasing, not owning, digital downloads. Probably uses it to justify his constant piracy of games from the publishers he mentioned. Otherwise, what the hell is he doing on a gaming website?

My guess is, he's a holdover from the time when Steam was still shit. That, or he has a shitty connection. Those are the usual suspects when it comes to irrational Steam hatred.

Why does that make him a pirate? It's not impossible that he just buys the game elsewhere or not at all if he's that against it. But maybe we shouldn't talk about someone in the third person like this anyway

People who hate Steam and its clones (GFWL, Uplay, Origin) have very few options: they could buy from GOG, and from Humble Bundle, the only two legal sources of DRM-free games. That gives you abandonware, indies, and some CD-Projekt titles. So, if you hate any form of DRM, and you want access to everything, even new shit? Well, you pirate, then tell yourself you're stealing from evil people, which makes you a good guy.

 

[Ipsen]

Great article again, Mr. Young!

You know, I'm STILL confuzzled on what this announcement is supposed to be about. More what people are saying about it, actually, as if the 'SteamBox' or 'entering the console market' was Valve's blatant plan all along.

The way I see it, SteamOS is Valve's most important and potentially innovative announcement. An OS dedicated to gaming you don't see every day, and being free, like most linux distributions, is only meta-icing on the cake. If an OS dedicated to gaming, which this sounds like, can improve the performance of current and future games, then Valve will continue to earn their reputation and following.

The 'SteamBox', however, just sounds like a pre-made PC. What's the big fart about that? I highly doubt (and I could be wrong here) that SteamOS will be locked to these SteamBoxes. It's not so much a console than a computer in the guise of one; a partnership with PC manufacturers to net in some revenue/keep everyone happy. But seeing how I can install quite a few linux distributions on my PC now, and Valve works primarily with PC, I'll assume I'm free to switch from Windows to SteamOS if I see fit to.

The controller is...just a controller. It looks unique, and I'm quite glad/excited to try haptic feedback. The ABXY buttons are placed pretty wierdly, however.

 

[irishda]

One of the biggest arguments I see in the console/PC debate is the location of where you can play and how TV's are bigger than computer monitors (typically). The usual PC counter is that people can just plug their tower into the TV. If that's what PC gamers are doing now. I don't see any reason why they would buy something they essentially already own.

Oh right, if it's the only thing that has Half-Life 3 everyone will buy it. Of course then Steam would be responsible for holding a game everyone wants hostage in order to boost sales for a product no one wants. Either one would be hilarious for me to watch.

Also:

My guess is, he's a holdover from the time when Steam was still shit. That, or he has a shitty connection. Those are the usual suspects when it comes to irrational Steam hatred.

Isn't the PC crowd always up in arms when single player games released with an online requirement? And yet "people with bad connections hate steam." Does that mean PC gamers don't actually care about the online requirement, it's just a vocal minority that also hates Steam?

 

[romxxii]

Isn't the PC crowd always up in arms when single player games released with an online requirement? And yet "people with bad connections hate steam." Does that mean PC gamers don't actually care about the online requirement, it's just a vocal minority that also hates Steam?

Mostly. Steam users embrace its online requirement, which is usually used for one-time activations, syncing cloud saves, updating Steam, and of course, downloading games and their patches/mods. However, none of these require you to be online while you play (Save for the actual MMOs and MP games). Additionally, there's an Offline Mode which lets you play even when your connection's down -- sans the aforementioned online features, of course.

The vocal minority of complainants usually have older builds of Steam, which had a really buggy Offline Mode, preventing people from playing when their connection went down. That, or they were stupid and tried to play a game that had another DRM layer, like Origin, Uplay, or GFWL. To my knowledge, the only one of those that has functional offline is Uplay. Origin warns you in-game when connection drops, which is annoying as hell.

It?s not really ?misleading?, it?s all part of PC gaming albeit being somewhat fragmented. While you might argue that Social/Casual games aren?t part of the ?core? that isn?t entirely true, there are for instance Browser games like these:
https://www.herokon-online.com/
http://www.drakensang.com/

Er, those look like browser-based online RPG's to me. They wouldn't be filed under social -- which covers Mafia Wars and Farmville -- but under MMO, which, as stated already, is already covered under the 21% heading of "MMO".

And even if you want to argue that this ?isn?t PC gaming? I think you?ll have a much harder time arguing that phenomenons like League of Legends or World of Tanks which are counted as MMOs aren?t ?core PC games?:

There's a reason I put "core" in quotation marks to begin with; it's a term I don't like to use. In fact, if we go back to my statement:

Even if you add the MMO to the 9% for boxed PC downloads, you only get 30%.

Yeah, I have no problems lumping them together, because those are your typical PC gamers.

While we?re at it you could nitpick the console data too, since all consoles (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) including older ones like PlayStation 2 and even handhelds are included in said numbers.

Hence, my statement that you would need the casual/flash/facebook demographic to surpass console gaming, which is still your 36% Entertainment screen (to remove handheld).

On the other hand, If we didn't remove handheld, and we didn't remove facebook games, consoles still win at 43%-39%. A closer game, true, but still one they win hands down.

Not only that but they apparently also count revenue from second-hand trade-ins that don?t add anything to publishers coffers and DLC so the numbers are likely over reported.

Are you saying DLCs don't get counted in PC sales? Because if they aren't, it's unfair. But only if they aren't.

As for trade-ins, the stores still earn something from that, so I guess you can add it because someone in the industry's getting paid. Just not the people who made the game, unfortunately.

On the other hand it is notoriously hard to get any revenue numbers out of Valve/Steam, since they are a privately held and run company with the ninth consecutive year-over-year sales growth of nearly 100% so they are likely to be underreported:

It could also be overreported, too. The point is, we don't know unless the publishers release the numbers (and they seem to be contractually obligated by Valve to not disclose that info).

 

[StriderShinryu]

One of the biggest arguments I see in the console/PC debate is the location of where you can play and how TV's are bigger than computer monitors (typically). The usual PC counter is that people can just plug their tower into the TV. If that's what PC gamers are doing now. I don't see any reason why they would buy something they essentially already own.

Oh right, if it's the only thing that has Half-Life 3 everyone will buy it. Of course then Steam would be responsible for holding a game everyone wants hostage in order to boost sales for a product no one wants. Either one would be hilarious for me to watch.

This is pretty much the way I see it was well.

Those who are already primarily console gamers are likely to stick with the form factor they're used to, playing in the way they're used to, and playing the series/genres they're used to.

Those who are dedicated PC gamers are likely already fans of the strengths that the PC gaming side already has. They're unlikely to be interested in buying a pre configured box (even if it is upgradeable) and can already do the connection to TV, strean media, etc. stuff if they want to.

There isn't really any sort of established market for the small slice of gaming that exists outside of those two options. Sure, Valve may make strides in creating it, but it's a space just as likely to be invaded by Apple or Google over the next few years. And, let's be honest, as beloved as Valve is amongst the devoted PC gaming crowd, they'd be crushed by either of those two competitors amongst the consumer public at large.

 

[Miss G.]

One of the biggest arguments I see in the console/PC debate is the location of where you can play and how TV's are bigger than computer monitors (typically). The usual PC counter is that people can just plug their tower into the TV. If that's what PC gamers are doing now. I don't see any reason why they would buy something they essentially already own.

Oh right, if it's the only thing that has Half-Life 3 everyone will buy it. Of course then Steam would be responsible for holding a game everyone wants hostage in order to boost sales for a product no one wants. Either one would be hilarious for me to watch.

This is pretty much the way I see it was well.

Those who are already primarily console gamers are likely to stick with the form factor they're used to, playing in the way they're used to, and playing the series/genres they're used to.

Those who are dedicated PC gamers are likely already fans of the strengths that the PC gaming side already has. They're unlikely to be interested in buying a pre configured box (even if it is upgradeable) and can already do the connection to TV, strean media, etc. stuff if they want to.

There isn't really any sort of established market for the small slice of gaming that exists outside of those two options. Sure, Valve may make strides in creating it, but it's a space just as likely to be invaded by Apple or Google over the next few years. And, let's be honest, as beloved as Valve is amongst the devoted PC gaming crowd, they'd be crushed by either of those two competitors amongst the consumer public at large.

Thanks for posting this because ever since this site got flooded with this news I've wanted to know who this thing was actually made for and never really got as clear an answer. Like you said if Apple or Google made something, as a strictly console/handheld user, I'd probably get them just because I buy a lot of their products and they're household names, whereas with Valve and Steam, I've never even heard of them before joining this site, so their name/product's effect is quite lost on me.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

People who hate Steam and its clones (GFWL, Uplay, Origin) have very few options: they could buy from GOG, and from Humble Bundle, the only two legal sources of DRM-free games. That gives you abandonware, indies, and some CD-Projekt titles.

Being the resident GOG white knight, I'd just like to point out that there are games on GOG which don't fall into these categories. I mean the ones which are a few years old but haven't become abandonware, like the Gothic series or King's Bounty. Or Heroes of Might & Magic V.

So, if you hate any form of DRM, and you want access to everything, even new shit? Well, you pirate, then tell yourself you're stealing from evil people, which makes you a good guy.

Or you know, you buy a physical copy. On a disc. In a box. Not all of them have DRM.

You don't even have to interact with people to do it nowadays.


OT: I tended to steer clear of all those announcements, because the amount of sloppy blowjobs that Valve receives from Escapist contributors makes me a bit queasy. But now that Shamus touched upon it, I have no choice.

Here's my question: what is the big deal about SteamBox? They seem to indicate that to play most Windows games, you still have to stream them from PC. So SB is something that lets you use your TV as a screen for PC gaming. I already have something like that. It's called a cable. And I'm pretty sure it's cheaper.

I can sort of see the advantage of SteamOS though, as I remember Linux users complaining to no end that their chosen system doesn't work too well as a serious gaming platform. It seems like Valve is trying to use its clout to force expansion of the gaming market into Linux. And I can stand behind such an idea. TBH, Linux's inviability as a gaming platform is the one thing keeping me back from adopting it (now that I got a work computer and don't have to run work-related software on my laptop).

And if that plan (forcing expansion into Linux) works, then SteamBox might become a successful console - a year or two down the line. Because at launch, I don't see much potential beyond "It's Valve! It's Steam!", which is not enough for me, personally. However, won't we end up running into the same problem it's supposed to combat? I.e. that SteamOS would become the only "proper" Linux distro for gaming, effectively another closed system?