Steambox is real

[dsheinem]

In his words, in a "Good, Better, Best" setup, "Best" is "whatever those guys want to build"...Signs are not indicating that there will be one static set of specs.

I read that but I also think the fact that Valve is itself building hardware undercuts the notion of a wide range of possible hardware quite a bit. Time will tell, I suppose.

More or less, if this is a step back, who is making a step forward, particularly on a platform level? Outside of raw computing power, the PC has been fairly stagnant. For example, what the Wii U does is easily within the capability of PC hardware. Why haven't we seen it there? Why is Kinect support so marginal, SmartGlass targeted at XBox, or whatever. A lot of what I see Gabe talking about is bringing that kind of stuff to the PC via Steam. I don't think he'd be saying that if MS (particularly) was actually laying the groundwork for it themselves.

See everything you just mentioned - camera-based gaming, waggle controls, smartglass, etc. - that is all stuff that I want to stay far away from PC gaming. For one, it is best suited to a larger space (like a living room). For another, it doesn't enhance any of the genres that PC gaming is best at.

As long as they dont shutout standard PC gamers I do not see this as anything but a good thing. While it will get watered down console ports, it could get more people into PC gaming, which means more PC games.

But it means more living-room friendly PC games, which isn't really what I look to PC gaming for. If Valve's hardware pushes in that direction, if they feature Steam sales of games that move in that direction, if they suggest a limited range of specs, etc. I DO see this marginalizing (if not "shutting out") standard PC gamers.

[isiolia]

See everything you just mentioned - camera-based gaming, waggle controls, smartglass, etc. - that is all stuff that I want to stay far away from PC gaming. For one, it is best suited to a larger space (like a living room). For another, it doesn't enhance any of the genres that PC gaming is best at.

I think they all have solid possibilities, particularly if coupled to greater processing power than they've been used with before. They might not suit 90% of games, but neither do steering wheels, HOTAS setups, or whatever. Those, however, have APIs to use if games want to support them.

I also think there's little reason to hang on to a mentality of PCs being "best at" only certain genres. The hardware is better across the board. They can be easily integrated into the living room, or possibly extended to there via streaming, wireless HDMI, or whatever.

Point is less to extol the virtues or possibilities of any one thing there, and more that expanding possibilities is a good thing. Why go on about the platform being open, flexible, etc, and then dismiss adding additional capabilities?

I like playing PC games in front a monitor with a keyboard and mouse too, but the simple fact is that my current PC probably has the horsepower to play 360-level games on every display in my house, at the same time. It would be interesting to see that used for more than running 1920x1200 with all options on. Valve seems to be interested in exploring that. MS is more interested in selling me a touchscreen and Metro style apps.

[fastbilly1]

But it means more living-room friendly PC games, which isn't really what I look to PC gaming for. If Valve's hardware pushes in that direction, if they feature Steam sales of games that move in that direction, if they suggest a limited range of specs, etc. I DO see this marginalizing (if not "shutting out") standard PC gamers.

So what do you consider a Living Room friendly game?

[dsheinem]

So what do you consider a Living Room friendly game?

Mostly games that play best with a controller or motion controls rather than a keyboard or mouse.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Call me weird, but I'd rather play any game at my desk than on a couch, except for local multiplayer.

I want to like the idea of the Steambox but, I can't really see myself ever using it. I, like many PC gamers, would much rather just play my PC at my desk. Or hook it up directly to the TV or use wireless HDMI and other things of that sort.

So I have to think this is geared more towards bringing console gamers into the Steam ecosystem. And I have to wonder if they'll really succeed. I guess if the price is right it will. However, if it costs anything close to what Xi3's other offerings are, I highly doubt any devoted console gamer will leave behind their PS3 that plays games just fine for a new Steambox with no physical media to trade in and a high price tag.

Frankly, if they want it to succeed, which I'm sure they do, they need to keep the price for the lower end models cheaper than a gaming PC and the average console. $250 for a low end model would probably be fine.

That said, the whole idea of the thing is actually pretty cool, even if I can't see myself actually wanting to use it.

Perhaps the coolest thing about this is their apparent interest in improving controllers using Biometrics and stuff like that. I'll be watching those developments like a hawk.

[Blu]

I was entertaining the idea of getting a small form factor PC for the sake of having it be my media hub, be able to do a bit of gaming, all from the comfort of my couch. But then I realized how strange it would be to have a PC gaming experience with keyboard, mouse while also sitting on the couch. I'm so used to a desk when it comes to PC gaming. Unfortunately, I haven't the budget for a good modern PC that can handle Diablo III, let alone anything else. I think I would fall into Steambox's target consumers--provided the points that dsheinem raises don't come to fruition.

[Cronozilla]

The idea behind steambox is actually pretty sound.
It appears their approach is let's maximize CPU and GPU possibilities while offering quality software suites that allow these features. And whatever hardware they end up with will likely have modularity to it. (It would make sense, for example, to make RAM accessible by the user, put the CPU and GPU on a single card, then you can just replace them for a minimal price).

I don't think they remotely intend for PC users to buy this in addition to their PC ... they know those people can just build their own box and get the exact same experience in their living room or at their desk ... what Valve is going after is the restricted console market. The people who refuse to play PC games ... because it's at a desk. And it also appears to be a best of both worlds sort of deal.

What they're doing is actually something games need. They're creating a sort of standard for hardware and games so we can just get on the same page already as opposed to having specific field experts, we'll have a general way to talk about everything. This isn't a limitation on what you can do on PC ... but more of a baseline. So, what it would seem they're doing is setting a minimum standard so developers have something to aim at ... they can help enforce that by releasing hardware modules that meet the official baselines they set. Like every 2 or so years ... it's akin to releasing new console hardware ... just without all the headache and incompatibilities.

Another thing it appears they're trying to do with this is, honestly, the future of how we're going to use media in our home. We're going to have setups that are local, sure, but in general, we're going to have a server that can service every display device in the house from one location. It's not going to be over the internet, but internal. It would allow a lot of things that a lot of people would appreciate ... like you're playing a game on your desktop, you pause it go downstairs, pick up a controller turn your TV on ... and resume playing with no issues. This is the sort of thing they're talking about. And it's already possible to do ... but it's quite expensive (involves building a few high end PCs) And they want to do this ... from a single small device. Which is feasible.

They're basically introducing games standards to make things simpler without restricting what you can actually do (it actually increases it), they want to erase the barriers of "platforms", they want to eliminate the bloat that exists on PC (We could get something closer to the real performance of the hardware), and they want to make central hubs that service entire households. These are good ideas, they're not new ideas .. but no one has executed them yet in a manner that's remotely usable. Everyone has a proprietary solution ... and of course that's just counter intuitive to the situation.

So, I like what Valve is talking about here ... and hey, if this thing is cheaper than me building a media PC for my living room ... why not?

[dsheinem]

What they're doing is actually something games need. They're creating a sort of standard for hardware and games so we can just get on the same page already as opposed to having specific field experts, we'll have a general way to talk about everything. This isn't a limitation on what you can do on PC ... but more of a baseline. So, what it would seem they're doing is setting a minimum standard so developers have something to aim at ... they can help enforce that by releasing hardware modules that meet the official baselines they set. Like every 2 or so years ... it's akin to releasing new console hardware ... just without all the headache and incompatibilities.

I strongly feel that "games" do NOT need this at all and that PC hardware baseline standards as "suggested by Valve" will do more to curb technological innovation and progress (which is currently rewarded by PC users) than to help it. If it is successful, a company like iD or Cyrtek - who historically push PC hardware to its limits and scale for future tech - will have little to no incentive to do so as there will be a "baseline" they need to meet to ensure access to Steambox.

I like the ideas of home-based hubs/servers for games, but basically all that other shit that seems to give you a thrill gives me the shivers.

[MrPopo]

What they're doing is actually something games need. They're creating a sort of standard for hardware and games so we can just get on the same page already as opposed to having specific field experts, we'll have a general way to talk about everything. This isn't a limitation on what you can do on PC ... but more of a baseline. So, what it would seem they're doing is setting a minimum standard so developers have something to aim at ... they can help enforce that by releasing hardware modules that meet the official baselines they set. Like every 2 or so years ... it's akin to releasing new console hardware ... just without all the headache and incompatibilities.

I strongly feel that "games" do NOT need this at all and that PC hardware baseline standards as "suggested by Valve" will do more to curb technological innovation and progress (which is currently rewarded by PC users) than to help it. If it is successful, a company like iD or Cyrtek - who historically push PC hardware to its limits and scale for future tech - will have little to no incentive to do so as there will be a "baseline" they need to meet to ensure access to Steambox.

I like the ideas of home-based hubs/servers for games, but basically all that other shit that seems to give you a thrill gives me the shivers.

There is a nugget of truth, though, in that today it is difficult for the layman to determine if game X will run on his machine without having a good understanding of computers. With a console game it's easy; do I own the console, and do I own the controller displayed on the box (for games that require Kinect/WiiMotionPlus/etc). PCs have gotten better over the years, but they still have a ways to go. These days the main stats are number of cores (due to how flat clock speeds have gotten), amount of RAM, and understanding the numbering system of graphics card manufacturer, but that last one is a real pain. The layman is not going to understand intuitively that the GeForce 670 is better than the GeForce 8800. The 8800 is a much bigger number, so it must be better.

[dsheinem]

There is a nugget of truth, though, in that today it is difficult for the layman to determine if game X will run on his machine without having a good understanding of computers.

I agree completely, but I am dubious of what might be lost by making PC gaming a more standardized, "more accessible" platform.