Valve working on 'Steam Box' console

[DoomyMcDoom]

*bangs head on keyboard*
No. No. No. No. No.
1. I think consoles are going to die out eventually. Probably soon.
2. Valve's main market are PC gamers, who have gaming PCs
3. We don't need more bloody consoles

i dont get why PC gamers are so angry towards console gamers, consoles can handle the very latest games and you dont need to worry about having the correct RAM, processor or graphics card. you just buy a game put it in and play it. i dont care if you think that makes me stupid or lazy but to be honest after a days work id much rather put in a game and just play it

I'm running a Gaming PC that cost me $800 like 2 years ago to build, I have it on all the time because I run servers off of it, I get home from work, open steam and I have over 350 games sittin there, don't even hafta "put a game in" I just select what I wanna play and BAM it's there, shorter loading times, and better options than on a console, that combined with the HUGE selection of different controlers and periferals, and the fact that I can plug it into a TV if I want to play it like a console. also due to steam sales all those games, probably put me back like $1000-$1200 for over 350 games... Do the math lol.

Also getting a computer put together by someone else, hell I assembled my first PC when I was 13, I picked out all the parts ordered them off NCIX.com, and just put em together... Not hard at all, and as far as the Myth of how expensive it is to keep a PC up to date enough to run everything well, when you look at how long it takes consoles to come out, by the time they hit the market the parts in them are years out of date, to assemble a computer to run all the new console ported games, costs almost nothing, because you can get decent stuff at low cost that will run for YEARS before you have to upgrade and then, get more cheap parts and bam good for another 4-6 years, and guess what, your game library just GROWS AND GROWS, you don't hafta worry about waiting for some decent games to be released for your new hardware, or worry about limited distribution of hardware to retail locations, you can just order some new shit, put it together and use your old parts to frankenstein another rig into being and either give it to someone, sell it to someone, or just use it as a data server or something.

You're not stupid or lazy, just maybe, ill informed? Hell if you can put a shelving unit together you can assemble a PC, in most cases a shelving unit is HARDER to assemble than a PC, mainly because in a PC everything is either labeled on the parts, or ONLY FITS in a specific spot in a specific way. hell I built a random computer just to have a seperate box to watch stuff on my TV off of while I game, took me about 20 minutes from finding all the spare crap I had layin about, to attatchin it to my TV and watchin movies on Netflix...

Hell even with no knowledge of parts or anything just get a friend of yours who knows their shit to help you, or ask me to build you a rig, and gimme a price range, and I'll send you a list of what you need and where to get it cheap.

 

[theheroofaction]

so how many valve years will this take?
and whats that in normal years?

probably around 3 valve years, so we should have it by 2296.

In all seriousness though, does anyone remember the phantom? no?

Exactly my point.

 

[Laughing Man]

Valve isn't manufacturing the device. That's why the article says they have hardware partners. Also, while Valve doesn't charge licensing fees, they do charge distribution fees -- to the tune of 30%. If Valve sells 200,000 of these things, and each gamer spends an average of $150 a year on games for the next five years, that's $45,000,000 in gross for Valve.

They didn't make the hardware, so they're only out R&D and advertisement money.

And both of those numbers are extremely conservative. If it's a million units and $200 a year, you're looking at $300,000,000.

To put it in perspective, the Vita sold over a million units in its first week of launch. Valve would have to screw up pretty hard to not make money on this thing.

The article is mince, it is full of we heard and hear say and doesn't actually contain any real information just a lot of the usual Valve has said something so it must contain some deep secondary meaning as well as an awful lot of 'sources have said.'

Failing all that just look at what is being claimed of the 'Steambox' open source, no SDK, will run any ones software including rival's software distribution services and all on a PC spec that currently retails for £600 (That's the less powerful Alien x51 and not the Core i7, 8 gig nonsense being mentioned in the article.) that alone is just comically unreal.

I am claiming BS on this one until something more solid than 'a source said'

 

[Vigormortis]

No, now this is just wrong. One of the reasons I prefer consoles is that I don't have to deal with the crap that is Steam on them.

No offense, but how is the infrastructure and operating systems of consoles any different? Save for being far less open.

You buy your console, you can only play games made for that console. If you want to play offline, you better hope the game didn't ship broken so as to require a patch day 1. If you have any downloaded games, you need to go through a rather lengthy and annoying process to transfer those games to another console should you need to replace yours. (something you don't have to deal with on Steam)

I guess I just don't see where having Steam as your key gaming OS would be worse. If anything, it would allow for more options and greater flexibility.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

For not even trying to update their console releases and still using the flimsy "MS won't let us!" excuse while other developers are able to get sizable updates/DLC out in a timely manner with little problem.

It's not "Microsoft wont let us", it's Microsoft is forcing us to charge for it. If you've played TF2 lately, It's a totally different game than it was when it was released. Charging for an essential update would cause a divide in the already small community of players who still play TF2 on the Xbox. CD Projekt Red are in a similar position, they've already stated that all future DLC will be free for PC, but charged for Xbox. Why? Because Microsoft's policy wont allow for it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.231292-Valve-Xbox-Live-Rules-are-a-Train-Wreck?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.315173-Theoretical-Witcher-2-DLC-Will-Be-Free-on-PC-But-Not-360

No shit Sherlock.

I never expected any of the DLC to be free. So far they've charged for all the L4D2 DLC, why would I think any future DLC would be different? It may not be fair but it's just something you have to accept.

I mean if that really is the only reason Valve haven't released any more DLC for any of their console releases then maybe somebody should go over to their offices and check to make sure there isn't a gas leak or something.

TF2 will probably be around 200 updates in now. Microsoft's rules would require Valve to charge for anything more substantial then a bugfix, or small tweak with a $.99 minimum price(Assuming there's no enforced price scaling for file size, which there probably is).They'll also require valve to pay THEM each time for the privilege of putting this update out over their service, which isn't cheap.

So on consumers side of the equation, you'd have little reason to buy them(Given TF2s low system requirements, most people will have a PC capable of running it, and if they don't they could upgrade their current one sufficiently for far less then the cost of the updates.) and valve would end up loosing a bunch of money providing support to the small community of players with more money then sense. Are you really that surprised they'd just take their ball and go home?

Like I said, I don't care about TF2. Never mentioned TF2 in any of my posts about Valve so I'm really confused why everyone assumes that's what I'm talking about.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

For not even trying to update their console releases and still using the flimsy "MS won't let us!" excuse while other developers are able to get sizable updates/DLC out in a timely manner with little problem.

It's not "Microsoft wont let us", it's Microsoft is forcing us to charge for it. If you've played TF2 lately, It's a totally different game than it was when it was released. Charging for an essential update would cause a divide in the already small community of players who still play TF2 on the Xbox. CD Projekt Red are in a similar position, they've already stated that all future DLC will be free for PC, but charged for Xbox. Why? Because Microsoft's policy wont allow for it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.231292-Valve-Xbox-Live-Rules-are-a-Train-Wreck?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.315173-Theoretical-Witcher-2-DLC-Will-Be-Free-on-PC-But-Not-360

No shit Sherlock.

I never expected any of the DLC to be free. So far they've charged for all the L4D2 DLC, why would I think any future DLC would be different? It may not be fair but it's just something you have to accept.

I mean if that really is the only reason Valve haven't released any more DLC for any of their console releases then maybe somebody should go over to their offices and check to make sure there isn't a gas leak or something.

Oh god no a company that doesn't want to charge you for a tiny portion of extra content. What is the world coming to? I think it would be fair to point out the day the threw up the first L4D2 DLC on XBL they made L4D2 the game the exact same price on Steam. As well as that they seem to find time to pay people for little community made mods so, while Valve may not be Jesus or perfect they seem to be doing pretty well when it comes to creating good rep for themselves.

 

[FernandoV]

It looks like this news has PC gamers trembling for some reason o.o

 

[ResonanceGames]

It looks like this news has PC gamers trembling for some reason o.o

Yeah, it's not just PC gamers, either. There's a certain kind of petulant whiner who thinks that any time spent on anything other than their exact platform of choice is a betrayal. It cracks me up every time.

Hopefully most of them will either grow out of it or rage themselves into having an early stroke and spend the rest of their lives on Valium and blood thinners.

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

I would honestly love a console with all the digital distribution and modding potential of a PC. That would make gaming a lot more accessible.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I dont think it will do well, It would face too much competion from the PS4, the next Xbox, and the Wii U. Now you might say, "Oh but Valve has a massive fanbase", and thats true, but they'[re mostly on the PC. Why would a PC gamer buy a console made by Valve, when they could access and play all of the Valve games they want, on their PC?

 

[A Raging Emo]

I love the idea, but for me to purchase one it would have to offer something better than my PC... which I can't see happening, in the near-future at least.

So what else can they do? Intentionally gimping Steam on PCs and/or leave out key/new features isn't going to make people purchase so I guess their only market will be those who already own consoles (good luck convincing them about a new console) and those with dated PCs. I can't see it happening myself, and if it does success will be minimal. I guess that depends how deep Valve's pockets will be.

Cross Platform support.

And it'll probably be far cheaper to get a "Steam Box" that you can just hook up to a Tele and then play. You won't have to spend hundreds and hundreds on a really smooth gaming PC.

 

[FernandoV]

It looks like this news has PC gamers trembling for some reason o.o

Yeah, it's not just PC gamers, either. There's a certain kind of petulant whiner who thinks that any time spent on anything other than their exact platform of choice is a betrayal. It cracks me up every time.

Hopefully most of them will either grow out of it or rage themselves into having an early stroke and spend the rest of their lives on Valium and blood thinners.

Amen my friend. People get jumpy at the weirdest things.

 

[halfeclipse]

Like I said, I don't care about TF2. Never mentioned TF2 in any of my posts about Valve so I'm really confused why everyone assumes that's what I'm talking about.

Because this:

For not even trying to update their console releases and still using the flimsy "MS won't let us!" excuse while other developers are able to get sizable updates/DLC out in a timely manner with little problem.

TF2 is the only valve game that qualifies for that statement. Every other game they've released on the Xbox has received equivalent updates to the PC version.

For that matter the statement from Valve you're recalling/referencing there was referring to the Xbox version of TF2, and the lack of updates to it specifically.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I'm very interested to see where this idea goes. I do hope we hear more about it soon because I think it could easily beat all the other consoles for a large variety of reasons:

1: You know the issue that PS3's had after newer models came out and you couldn't play your old PS2 games anymore? If this console has steam, any old game you had on Steam will still, likely, be accessible without problem.

2: Valve is a PC gaming company and knows that people will probably want to be able to upgrade the hardware at any given point in time. I'm sure they'd also be smart enough to allow people to do just that.

3: The price would likely be lower than the average gaming PC, meaning that it would be a much cheaper investment than normal PC gaming. But if it is also running steam, my bet is that it would be like if PS3 was capable of using the PC-version of steam, i.e. free and constant updates to games without any of the SOE or XBL bullshit that would normally slow them down. These problems might not exist in the next generation of consoles, but rather than hope it isn't an issue (because it's probably still going to be with XBL) Valve may want to avoid it being a problem entirely, to which I say, "right on"

4: It would already have a massive library of games thanks to all the stuff Steam has on it. Not to mention that you would be able to free up a lot of space on your PC by moving the bulk of your games (if not all) off the PC and keep most of them installed on the console. Because, honestly, I'm running out of space and my PC is 4 years old now (going on 5 soon) so this would be a great alternative as opposed to getting a new PC or upgrading (because upgrading laptops doesn't seem as easy or fun).

5: Lastly, to PC gamers (me included), don't think that this will be the end. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Valve is just trying to get both markets rather than focus on just ours? I mean, if anything, we were probably like their first test/hurdles to see if they could get people to like their products and service. Doubling profits for about three years proves people like them and they know what they're doing. They obviously won't drop support or service quality towards their PC crowd if this happens. If anything, they'll probably give us the updates first still to make sure they work before implementing them on their consoles. I could be wrong on any of these points, but whatever. I think this could be an interesting and worthwhile idea. Sign me up.

 

[Laughing Man]

I'll just leave this here

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116240-Valve-Denies-Steam-Box-Console-Rumors

Oh and told you so!