Phil Harrison (MS) about Steam Box and gaming: article

I like the idea to have a gaming PC in a living room. It looks like it's possible to use other distribution systems as well. I have never owned a console since I simply find PC games better and PC much more versatile as a gaming platform.

Steam Box gamer's has more choice because they can use mouse+keyboard. Mouse+keyboard makes FPS, strategy (Total War, Civilization, ...), simulators, MUDs, older games, etc. available for gamers additional to more casual pad/console -games.

Steam has 50M users.

Yes, Steam has 50M users, and they'll continue to have those users, with maybe 2% of them using a Steam Box in the living room.

However just like all previous attempts to make a Linux console, it will fail because ultimately those that choose Linux out of "principle" also don't like to pay for anything (it's their God-given right to get everything for free and whatnot). Not to mention there just never will be any significant amount of native Linux games.

Don't know if there's even a slightest truth behind this but anyway ...
ex-Sony employee: Xbox 360 and PS3 losses total $8 billion

1 hour ago, Erisan wrote

Those who wants a better gaming experience will have pad+mouse+keyboard in living room...

Wish I could hook up keyboard/mouse to the Xbox...I'd kill more guys in Black Ops II..FPS games are tough with a controller

Well, time will tell how Linux users behaves in Steam but at least in HumbleBundle Linux users has been paying quite nicely so far.
Steam Box is not going to be the only Linux console that is trying to get some market share this year as there's going to be plenty of Android devices as well.

47 minutes ago, BitFlipper wrote

@Harlequin: Steam is just upset at MS because the Store will be taking sales away from them, and if they make a Metro version of Steam they will need to pay MS 30%.

No, they don't. You're talking about Apple.

However just like all previous attempts to make a Linux console, it will fail because ultimately those that choose Linux out of "principle" also don't like to pay for anything (it's their God-given right to get everything for free and whatnot). Not to mention there just never will be any significant amount of native Linux games.

The average Linux user pays more for the Humble Indie Bundles than Windows or Apple users.

Btw. Oculus Rift looks very interesting. It was demoed in CES and as far as I have read about it, people says it's very impressive. Can't wait to test it some day.

1 hour ago, BitFlipper wrote

However just like all previous attempts to make a Linux console, it will fail because ultimately those that choose Linux out of "principle" also don't like to pay for anything (it's their God-given right to get everything for free and whatnot). Not to mention there just never will be any significant amount of native Linux games.

1 hour ago, Erisan wrote

@Bass:Yeah true. There's many things that can go wrong, but still I'm positive about Valve's efforts.

Don't know if there's even a slightest truth behind this but anyway ...
ex-Sony employee: Xbox 360 and PS3 losses total $8 billion

Yeah that's a problem. You have companies who are effectively price dumping their wares on the market, so how can someone without the same amount of money to burn compete? I wish them luck though, definitely.

22 minutes ago, Ion Todirel wrote

*snip*That doesn't make any sense, there's zero correlation between the OS being used and the potential success of a console. Did you hear about this thing called PlayStation 3, what kernel do you think they're using? 

Yes it does make sense. In all cases where Linux has any kind of success, it is in cases where the OS itself is hidden away from the end user and most don't even know or care what OS it is because they never interact with it directly. What Valve is doing is trying to push Linux as more of a general purpose gaming PC where the end user will need to interact more directly with the actual OS (upgrade graphics card, install new controllers etc).

That is not the only issue. Valve is trying to push this as a system where you can install anything you want (yes it is a great goal), except the number of Linux games is a tiny fraction of that of Windows. I find it hard to image every game developer suddenly falling over themselves trying to get a Linux version of their game out. Hence why I say just like all previous Linux console efforts, this will also fail. I say they should go ahead and do it, but ultimately it will just set them back and they will just prove my point. Again.

Linux is not an OS, it is a kernel. Here is where you can download Linux: http://www.kernel.org/ (I hope the domain is descriptive enough.)

Just because Gaben said they are using Linux for this thing doesn't mean they are going to have Gentoo with the default fluxbox interface and xterm being the app launcher.

1 hour ago, Bass wrote

@BitFlipper:

Linux is not an OS, it is a kernel.

Ooh that changes everything!

34 minutes ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

Ooh that changes everything!

Glad I could be of service.

1 hour ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

Yes it does make sense. In all cases where Linux has any kind of success, it is in cases where the OS itself is hidden away from the end user and most don't even know or care what OS it is because they never interact with it directly. What Valve is doing is trying to push Linux as more of a general purpose gaming PC where the end user will need to interact more directly with the actual OS (upgrade graphics card, install new controllers etc).

That is not the only issue. Valve is trying to push this as a system where you can install anything you want (yes it is a great goal), except the number of Linux games is a tiny fraction of that of Windows. I find it hard to image every game developer suddenly falling over themselves trying to get a Linux version of their game out. Hence why I say just like all previous Linux console efforts, this will also fail. I say they should go ahead and do it, but ultimately it will just set them back and they will just prove my point. Again.

almost the same as what I think are some issues...

one big one is this:

say they get the boxes into some stores, a lot of normal / average folks will see the XBOX, PS3 and WII as well known gaming systems that they have friends and relatives etc.. who have the same systems and they will see a HUGE catalog of known games to use on the systems.

then here is this "other box" ... no track record, no known friends or family using one, and no list of games they have that match up with the other "consoles"

sure Valve has done some really great games  in the past but ....

then the other issue is getting developers to want to make games for this ... well what is it anyway?

if say they made a real console with fixed hardware specs etc... then a developer knows that if the game works on a test console it will work on all the other consoles of that brand and model out there and will have the same performance for all the users.

here we have a pc that will not always have the same parts and may not even have the same OS.

sure I like games on a PC but right now we ware talking about making something that can really compete with the consoles ....

if they leave it open and allow different mixes of parts and OS and drivers then I just can not see it really making a dent in the games market.

I see it being something like the mac mini, but for gaming. There is a market, but it's not going to satisfy the casuals (price vs consoles) nor the hardcore (power/upgrade ability vs pcs).

6 hours ago, Tokter wrote

I bought Call Of Duty MW3 from steam recently, the multiplayer is full of cheaters and hackers. That just kills PC gaming for me. I don't want to have to deal with that, on consoles that is almost not existent.

That may vary per game though. BioWare has generally been pretty good about ensuring those who hack their game files in the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer get promptly banned. Of course, it probably helps that the business model for the ME3MP relies on microtransactions from the store, and people who can get easy credits by making the game much easier won't need to spend money (of course, I don't spend money anyway but that's besides the point).

By contrast, the console versions of ME3 have had missile glitchers as a real problem (there is a glitch you can exploit that makes certain weapons shoot infinite cobra missiles (which is supposed to be a very limited supply heavy weapon), making the game beyond easy). BW have had a much harder time cracking down on this glitch. It's apparently also possible to pull off on PC but much harder and I've never seen it.

And of course the keyboard/mouse controls for ME3 are way better than the gamepad controls. PC gaming master race FTW!

Polygon: Steam crafted to ensure unique, personalized entertainment experiences, says Newell

Some recent audio interviews with Gabe Newell:
Valve - The Company
Valve - The Games

16 hours ago, Bass wrote

Linux is not an OS, it is a kernel. Here is where you can download Linux: http://www.kernel.org/ (I hope the domain is descriptive enough.)

Both the words "kernel" and "OS" mean different things to different people.

Try answering the following to see where you stand:

1. Is Windows Explorer part of the OS, or part of the kernel, or neither?

2. What about Notepad?

3. What about Microsoft drivers (like tcpip.sys)? Are they part of the OS, or part of the kernel?

4. What about non-Microsoft drivers (like winpcap.sys)? Are they part of the kernel?

5. What about hal.dll? Is that part of the kernel? Or part of the OS?

6. Win32k.sys? Kernel or OS?

7. Winload.exe / NTLDR - is that part of the kernel? 

8. Ntdll - is it part of the OS or the kernel?

It's not really a useful distinction to say whether X is a kernel or an OS because both are words that mean different things to different people. The boundaries are blurry, and different people use different criteria (e.g. IsKernel(X) == RunsInRingZero(X), or IsOs(X) == ShippedWithMyLaptop(X) )

15 hours ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

if say they made a real console with fixed hardware specs etc... then a developer knows that if the game works on a test console it will work on all the other consoles of that brand and model out there and will have the same performance for all the users.

here we have a pc that will not always have the same parts and may not even have the same OS.

Valve is not going to try to compete with Playstation or Xbox or Nintendo. They will be different.

2 hours ago, ZippyV wrote

*snip*

Valve is not going to try to compete with Playstation or Xbox or Nintendo. They will be different.

yes... but will that work ?   while I like alternatives and new ideas I have seen a lot of good stuff never make it in the long run.   for example back in the day I thought for a time that the Amiga OS and hardware were the way to go, if someone like say Microsoft had purchased that system it might well be what we use today ...   but Commodore went under and the Amiga has by-and-large become a footnote in the history of computers.   hey they can give it a go and see what happens, I might be as wrong here as I was back in the day when I thought Amiga had a chance and went no where.

3 hours ago, ZippyV wrote

Valve is not going to try to compete with Playstation or Xbox or Nintendo. They will be different.

The real question is that since these Steam games will by definition run on Linux (since the Steam box is Linux), buying the Steam box is basically just buying good hardware and a game pad (let's call it $400 for argument's sake).

Now if $400 gets you X amount of good hardware and a game pad in the form of a Steam box that'll play Steam games and nothing else - why would a consumer not preferentially just buy the same good hardware and game pad without the restriction of it only playing Steam games?

Or in other words - what is the value of buying a Steam box versus buying the same hardware and running Steam and other things on it?

Basically what Steam will be selling is a gaming PC built for the living room with an OS that limits your game choices (but you can install Windows on it which will cost you more).

Which makes no sense since a simple Google/Bing search will find you a boatload of turnkey gaming PCs already designed for the living room. You all know there are companies already doing that, right? And they all can run Steam. And pretty much play all the existing Steam games.

I fail to see what a SteamBox brings to the party.

I view Linux is a base for writing your own OS, not an OS in it's own right. It's a bit like baking a cake, Linux is just an ingredient, but still you still need a whole lot of other stuff to have a tasty cake. Some of that stuff you can find on the shelf but other stuff you might want to make from scratch. But with just one ingredient it's really hard to draw conclusions about the whole cake.

2 hours ago, Bass wrote

@evildictaitor:

I view Linux is a base for writing your own OS, not an OS in it's own right. It's a bit like baking a cake, Linux is just an ingredient, but still you still need a whole lot of other stuff to have a tasty cake. Some of that stuff you can find on the shelf but other stuff you might want to make from scratch. But with just one ingredient it's really hard to draw conclusions about the whole cake.

But you could say exactly the same about Windows. Windows is a base on which to design your workstation. For example, most people need to install Visual Studio or Photoshop or Office or whatever to make it even vaguely suited to their individual needs.

Where people draw the line between OS/kernel/whatever is entirely down to the individual. My gran, for example, thinks that Office is part of Windows because that's what her computer is configured with. I, on the other hand, think that win32k.sys only barely qualifies as the "kernel" of Windows, even though it is responsible for well over half of the syscalls your system makes.

1. It's an unknown quantity.
2. Has little app support compared to competitors.
3. Existing apps must be ported to it and some rewritten altogether.
4. There are already many other options in the marketplace that provide a similar function.

• All Android games are available and playable
• All Windows games are available provided the user has a Windows pc (see Nvidia's handheld console)

5 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

But you could say exactly the same about Windows. Windows is a base on which to design your workstation. For example, most people need to install Visual Studio or Photoshop or Office or whatever to make it even vaguely suited to their individual needs.

Where people draw the line between OS/kernel/whatever is entirely down to the individual. My gran, for example, thinks that Office is part of Windows because that's what her computer is configured with. I, on the other hand, think that win32k.sys only barely qualifies as the "kernel" of Windows, even though it is responsible for well over half of the syscalls your system makes.

Oh I totally agree with you. The same thing very much applies to Windows as well (especially Windows CE). If you tell me something runs WinCE, with that knowledge alone I couldn't even know if it was a game console or a pretzel dispenser.

1 day ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

Ooh that changes everything!

Actually, it does. 

What he's saying is that Steam will use the Linux kernel, but the UI that runs on top of that will probably not be a geek paradise. 

There's probably an awful lot of Linux running in your house that you don't even know about. 

10 hours ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Actually, it does. 

What he's saying is that Steam will use the Linux kernel, but the UI that runs on top of that will probably not be a geek paradise.

And what I'm saying is that if the kernel is Linux (really who cares about pedantic details like whether it is a kernel or an OS... I mean, really?), that it can't run all the existing Steam Windows games natively and hence you are limited. Unless all those games magically get ported to Linux.

There's probably an awful lot of Linux running in your house that you don't even know about. 

Or care about. Which was one of my previous points. The only places Linux gets some success in the consumer market is when the OS is nicely hidden away and end users don't need to interact with it directly. No-one goes to Frys and buys a router because it runs Linux. No-one cares.

Look Linux is fine, I even develop and debug on both Linux and Windows at work (although by far I prefer to develop on/for Windows). But there are cases where it just doesn't make sense and trying to create essentially what is a gaming PC using Linux just isn't going to be a success.

And no-one has answered my question as to what makes a Linux based "SteamBox" better than say any one of the available pre-built, living-room friendly gaming PCs running Windows and Steam? Hmmm?

And no-one has answered my question as to what makes a Linux based "SteamBox" better than say any one of the available pre-built, living-room friendly gaming PCs running Windows and Steam? Hmmm?

One possible advantage: Validation.

With PC games, far too frequently there are quirks to outright show-stopping bugs.  The majority can be minor, but some can be huge - the recent hit Sleeping Dogs for example, takes 15 minutes to start on my PC and many others (according to the huge thread on Square Enix & Steam Forums).  It's been that way for months.  Doesn't affect everyone of course, but that's always the case with an open hardware platform with a massive variety.  The fact it may be a driver or developer problem is irrelevant if it just doesn't work.

So, what Valve could do is basically treat the SteamBox like a console - validating games that will work perfectly, or as close as possible on their restricted set of configurations.  Much like they do now with verifying no/partial/full controller support for Windows games in Big Picture mode, you get a "Works with Steambox!" logo, and Valve validates the games with driver updates, etc.

Now, does that then make a Linux SteamBox viable alternative to Windows gaming?  Hell no, bugs or not you're still looking at ~2% of the gaming coverage of a windows system, and that makes it useless for me and many other PC gamers out of the gate. 

So I'm not sure how fully committed Valve will be to this project, this could a long, multi-year thing where they keep testing the waters.  With the MS store and MS seemingly far more interested in pushing the Xbox brand to Windows users than promoting PC gaming (and this will only get worse with the 720 released next year, and considering it might be X86 based and MS's new direction as a devices company, this might be MS's major push for a closed platform for far more than just videogames), Valve is probably looking far ahead  Steam for Windows sure as hell 'aint going anywhere.

There is also the possibility of SteamBox exclusive games. You know, just like other video game consoles.

I'm personally interested in learning about what its UI will be. I doubt it will be Steam full screen, but something different with multimedia features built in. Maybe even Android based.

14 minutes ago, Bass wrote

Aren't all consoles just "gaming PCs"? I don't necessarily think this will be a success (because the competition is tough), but it's not a new magical idea Value is making here, it is literally a video game console.

Technically yes a console is a PC but from an end-user POV the difference between a console and a "PC" is one is closed and one is open (open as in upgrade hardware, install whatever software you want, even a different OS).It sounds like SteamBox will fall into the "open" category so it is closer to a PC than a console.

Which is great I believe but now they are competing with a slew of existing "gaming PCs" with no clear advantage that I can see and none of the true console advantages like being a fixed, stable platform for 5-10 years. I mean, people will be upgrading/modding/adding different controllers (requiring different drivers) all the time to this SteamBox so it won't be stable like a true console. Meaning even if a game is designed "for SteamBox", it still will need to be tested on a range of variable hardware/software. At that point game developers might as well just target Windows/Linux in general.

You can mod consoles, install unauthorized software on them, even entire new OSes (the original Xbox this was actually very easy, didn't even require hardware mods). PS3s were open for awhile and some organizations even used them in compute clusters.

The fact that SteamBox is open makes it more desirable for some, but it is not a dealbreaker for anyone that I'm aware of. Nobody goes to Walmart and says, I want a inflexible console that I can't install anything on! I don't think PS3's sales instantly exploded when they closed their platform. If you want that so badly, you can just pretend the software can't be changed on it and be none the wiser.

At best, to the end user, if something is open and closed it is total indifference. They don't care either way. The very few that care (like me) would prefer an open platform. I would love to be able to install Linux (or hell, even Windows) on my Xbox 360 for instance.

11 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@NitzWalsh:

There is also the possibility of SteamBox exclusive games. You know, just like other video game consoles.

Possibly, but Valve isn't exactly a prolific developer in terms of titles and timeframes.  They would not restrict a big budget title the very small marketshare this box would likely have in the first couple of years, and other publishers wouldn't be keen to jump on board when one publisher controls the strings I bet.  I would also majorly piss off their Windows gamers, which is their bread and butter and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

I'm personally interested in learning about what its UI will be. I doubt it will be Steam full screen, but something different with multimedia features built in. Maybe even Android based.

Big Picture mode gives me promise, they certainly have aptitude in this area.  It's not perfect but damn it's impressive for a first showing.

36 seconds ago, NitzWalsh wrote

*snip*

Possibly, but Valve isn't exactly a prolific developer in terms of titles and timeframes.  They would not restrict a big budget title the very small marketshare this box would likely have in the first couple of years, and other publishers wouldn't be keen to jump on board when one publisher controls the strings I bet.  I would also majorly piss off their Windows gamers, which is their bread and butter and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

*snip*

Big Picture mode gives me promise, they certainly have aptitude in this area.  It's not perfect but damn it's impressive for a first showing.

There is always a risk with exclusives. I agree though. The big console makers have a bigger wallet to take risks with exclusives in order to prop up their platform. Valve is a private company though, their finances are not really public. They could be sitting on billions for all we know. I doubt it though, since their Steam commissions aren't very high.

35 minutes ago, Bass wrote

Aren't all consoles just "gaming PCs"?

Not at all.  What makes a gaming PC is the massive variety of hardware and software configurations; that is both a positive and a negative.  You're never guaranteed a game will work OOTB or support your preferred control scheme/social gaming network on a PC as you are with a console, that's huge for an entertainment device - most non-geeks don't want to futz with drivers or tweak .ini's to resolve quirks. 

OTOH, with a closed platform you're stuck with what the developer targets as an acceptable tradeoff with respect to quality and performance in games.  Hate massive screen tearing or sub-30fps?  Tough, that game you love will be forever marred by the decisions the developer made.  A PC, adjust the settings or just throw more hardware at it down the line, and eventually you'll have the best version of cross-platform games out there - again, provided they work.

I don't necessarily think this will be a success (because the competition is tough), but it's not a new magical idea Valve is making here, it is literally a video game console.

Only if you use the popular misinterpretation of "literally" as "figuratively".   They're not building the hardware, they're not locking it down.  They're making a somewhat restricted platform that is still open - you'll be able to put Windows on this if you want.  They're trying to bridge the divide between closed and open platforms and retain the advantages of both.  In theory, of course - the real nitty gritty details are still scarce.

5 minutes ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

There is always a risk with exclusives. I agree though. The big console makers have a bigger wallet to take risks with exclusives in order to prop up their platform. Valve is a private company though, their finances are not really public. They could be sitting on billions for all we know. I doubt it though, since their Steam commissions aren't very high.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverchiang/2011/02/15/valve-and-steam-worth-billions/

Who really knows, but it keeps growing every year.  If that $55 million in operating profit in 2005 is accurate, they're doing damn well by now.  It's not as if MS is raking in profits from the 360 until recently, and considering the expenditure and the fact the original Xbox never made any money, Valve may actually be more successful - albeit they don't have a massive organization like MS to back them up of course.

Consoles are really really just general purpose computers. The company might put handcuffs on the computer.. put some (somewhat superficial) barriers to disallow it to be used as a general purpose computer, but they can't fundamentally hide the fact that it is a general purpose computer and with enough tenacity a clever individual can break whatever digital locks they put it on it.

10 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@BitFlipper:

You can mod consoles, install unauthorized software on them, even entire new OSes (the original Xbox this was actually very easy, didn't even require hardware mods). PS3s were open for awhile and some organizations even used them in compute clusters.

The vast majority of console buyers probably don't care or plan to mod anything. The whole point for those kinds of consumers is that they don't have to be computer geeks to operate a console.

Nobody goes to Walmart and says, I want a inflexible console that I can't install anything on!

No, but they do go to Walmart saying (indirectly) that they want that gaming thing where they can simply pop in the game disk they bought off the Walmart shelves and it just play games without them having to do didly squat else.

I don't think PS3's sales instantly exploded when they closed their platform. If you want that so badly, you can just pretend the software can't be changed on it and be none the wiser.

It doesn't work the same way if the average consumer needs to "pretend" that it is a closed platform. It actually needs to be closed so that there is zero computer knowledge required to operate (and maintain) for it to be attractive to the masses. It really is that simple.

At best, to the end user, if something is open and closed it is total indifference. They don't care either way.

It's the same issue. It is very difficult to create an open system that is also very consumer friendly. This is why the iPad is successful with people that don't know anything about computers (my mom is a perfect example - doesn't know or care about computers but loves her iPad). They just don't need to know anything geeky to operate/maintain it.

So while you say they don't care, they do indirectly because else they just would not have been interested in using it to begin with. And you need these masses to make such a product successful.

In fact this consoles/open systems these days are even harder to mess with. You have have a setting hidden in some deep menu that's like "Unlock the bootloader" or some such, that is like "Are you really sure you want to do this?". That's pretty much how PS3/open Android devices do it. Even if you do that, it still doesn't change anything. You still to go through a whole lot of random steps (including downloading lots of random software) to change anything, ie. just like a regular computer.

7 minutes ago, Bass wrote

If you call something a duck and then put handcuffs on it, I'm still going to call it a duck even if you claim it isn't a duck anymore.

I don't agree with this. The whole concept of a "console" is that it is a dedicated, closed device intended to do a very fixed range of functions. There is no user-serviceable parts in it and the user is never intended to open and service it. A "PC" is a computer meant to run all sorts of software and it is user serviceable. Basically, "console" implies a specific intended purpose more than what it physically is built from. It just happens to contain similar components than a general purpose PC.

Consoles are really really just general purpose computers.

No it's not. It has a very specific purpose. Which is the opposite of general purpose. No-one argues it can't be hacked to perform some other purpose, but this doesn't make it a general purpose computer because the masses that make it successful are not using it that way.

By your logic a bulldozer is a car because it has an engine, steering wheel and four heels. Yet no-one calls it a car because it was never meant to perform the same duties as an actual car. Yes you can probably use it to go and buy groceries if you really want to. Hey you can probably even hack it and put lowriders on it if that sort of thing blows up your dress...

Or taken even further... The digital clock on my wall is also a general purpose computer because it has a CPU and a display.

EDIT: BTW, once you hack a console, it should be banned from the console network. At that point it no longer is a console.

38 minutes ago, Bass wrote

If you call something a duck and then put handcuffs on it, I'm still going to call it a duck even if you claim it isn't a duck anymore.

That's uh...certainly some kind of analogy there.

Consoles are really really just general purpose computers.

They're the exact opposite of that.  They're highly specialized, that's what makes them consoles.

They're specifically engineered devices to work best at a subset of tasks that a PC can do.  They're locked-down by the manufacturer.  They're subsidized by the parent company (not always, but certainly recently) so that publishers must pay a fee to release software for it unless they're restricted to a narrow development environment.  They are engineered to stress polygon and pixel shading performance over general computing (tried IE on the 360 lately?  Christ an Atom netbook runs rings around it).  If they were truly "general purpose", you would be using them as general purpose

Now, with the 720 and PS4, this may change somewhat - especially if the rumours turn out to be true and they're x86 based with lots of ram.  That still doesn't change that they're going to be locked down and heavily engineered for games and media consumption over content creation...probably.  If MS allows you to hook up a keyboard and mouse and anymore can write code for it, then you'll have an actual argument.

The fact that some hacker may eventually find a way around the protection is utterly irrelevant if the market is so niche that software developers can't cater for it (and especially since they can legally ban you from their gaming networks when they encounter a hacked console). 

Software is what makes a platform "general purpose", not some theoretical possibility of what you could do with the hardware if given access for pete's sake. 

Arguing that they're the same as PC's because you might find a console with the specific vulnerability in their DVD firmware that allows you to install arbitrary media players and pirate games and hope that it won't be bricked when you put it on the network is ridiculous.

The fact that I can hook up my PC to my TV and plug in a 360 pad does not make it a console, as the very attributes of a console that make them attractive to the general market - their accessibility, reliability, affordability and specific focus - are not present.  It can act like a console, but it's not called one for those reasons.  The same is true as the inverse - hooking up a monitor to my 360 doesn't make it a PC, as it shares little of the qualities which make a PC a PC.

5 minutes ago, Bass wrote

I'm not going to validate the idea that you can change the true character of something simply by putting artificial restrictions on its use.

First off, it's not just artificial restrictions as I outlined earlier - there are indeed technical limitations inherent in the platform.  These may be largely eliminated with the next gen, but we're not there yet.

Secondly, it's not an "idea", it's reality.  There's a reason there's no word processors for consoles currently - they can't run them.  Arguing that it may be technically possible is irrelevant to their actual utility, that utility defines the device.

Basically by your logic, the term "PC" can mean anything with a CPU that could potentially run code.  Therefore:

Your microwave is now a PC.

Your Tom Tom navigator is now a PC.

Your digital thermometer is a PC.

Your arbitrary definition of the term leads to it becoming meaningless.  You're arguing that there was never a need for the word console; there was - hence it was created and used for the past several decades to describe a certain class of device.

This is just becoming a silly definition war. I'm not going to even bother to define "PC", I think it's a meaningless marketing term these days for things that vaguely resemble the linage of the original IBM PC. But, I do think it is possible for all the things you listed to be "general purpose computers". Anything that computes is a computer and is in any way programmable in order run a wide variety different algorithms is general purpose. Hence, there is a lot of general purpose computers out there, even if it may not seem like it.

Now going back to the SteamBox, it is in fact both a video game console and a general purpose computer. If it even vaguely resembles a vague concept of a PC, it probably does not by default, ie. requires some active actions by the end user in order to "hack" it, ie. by installing software and perhaps even replacing parts of the bootloader. Ditto for any console really, except other consoles contain various anti-features that the SteamBox lacks related to this functionality.

3 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

And what I'm saying is that if the kernel is Linux (really who cares about pedantic details like whether it is a kernel or an OS... I mean, really?), that it can't run all the existing Steam Windows games natively and hence you are limited. Unless all those games magically get ported to Linux.

*snip*

Or care about. Which was one of my previous points. The only places Linux gets some success in the consumer market is when the OS is nicely hidden away and end users don't need to interact with it directly. No-one goes to Frys and buys a router because it runs Linux. No-one cares.

Yup, and that's the point that Bass was making: there is no reason why the user will need to be exposed to the internals of Linux (that was the second part of his comment which you skipped over), in much the same way that users don't have to interact with Linux when they're using their set-top boxes

I even develop and debug on both Linux and Windows at work (although by far I prefer to develop on/for Windows).

And this proves what exactly?

But there are cases where it just doesn't make sense and trying to create essentially what is a gaming PC using Linux just isn't going to be a success.

The success or failure of the box has nothing to do with the operating system it is running; it will live or die based on the marketing ability of the companies behind it. Linux is just the free core they've used as a operating system for the box. I suspect what we really need to look out for is the gaming engine and the UI that they've built on top of that. That's the important part.

And no-one has answered my question as to what makes a Linux based "SteamBox" better than say any one of the available pre-built, living-room friendly gaming PCs running Windows and Steam? Hmmm?

Yeah, the problem is that you're focussed on the Linux part; try to see a little further. The detail we don't yet know much about is how the games are going to be built? How will they talk to each other'? That's this multi-room, multi-screen thing all about. Linux is unimportant in this regard.

A lot of folk have also pointed out, quite rightly, that they have no chance of taking on the XBox360. I think they know that. What they're looking for is to build a profitable infrastructure around a networked game engine (not a Linux PC – we already have enough of those, thanks). They don't actually need to outsell the PS3 and the XBox to do that. The first thing they should do is avoid a strategy that results in their losses mounting as their sales increase.

22 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

Seems like the SteamBox has the same issues as SurfaceRT:

1. It's an unknown quantity.
2. Has little app support compared to competitors.
3. Existing apps must be ported to it and some rewritten altogether.
4. There are already many other options in the marketplace that provide a similar function.

That's largely true, but the comparison is a bit of a stretch.

A tablet (or a smartphone, or a laptop) can be made indefinitely useful with just a handful of applications. By contrast, a game console needs a constant stream of titles being ported to it or it will soon become as useful as a doorstop.

Also, if you want to - say - browse the web, it doesn't matter much which browser your tablet provides, as long as it does a decent job. But if you want to play some specific game, no substitute will ever do.

Bottom line: the Surface doesn't have it easy, but that's a walk in the park as compared to a new game console.

1 hour ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

The success or failure of the box has nothing to do with the operating system it is running

The OS is extremely relevant when the idea is to take what we know of today as the Steam client and make a "dedicated" consumer device that runs those games. And the reason is because you have N number of games that can run on a Steam + Windows and N/100 games that can run on a Steam + Linux.

So how exactly is the OS then not relevant? It is only irrelevant if the plan is to make a system for which you plan to write all new games, and/or only have the limited number of Linux games available that we have today.

I even develop and debug on both Linux and Windows at work (although by far I prefer to develop on/for Windows).

...

And this proves what exactly?

That I'm not completely ignorant about Linux. But that thinking it is going to be this wonderful new gaming platform is bound for failure due to the main reason that such a system has no advantages, just disadvantages.

3 hours ago, Bass wrote

@NitzWalsh:

This is just becoming a silly definition war. I'm not going to even bother to define "PC", I think it's a meaningless marketing term these days for things that vaguely resemble the linage of the original IBM PC.

Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't be so up in arms about calling a console a PC.  You seem wed to the term, I'm not - I'm using the proper term to describe the device as everyone has since the Atari VCR hit the streets.

But, I do think it is possible for all the things you listed to be "general purpose computers".

It's possible for a car to be a motorobike if you mod it enough.  Saying you should call it that because it has potential to be one is a sign that you're gravely confused what words mean and their purpose in allowing coherent communication.

Now going back to the SteamBox, it is in fact both a video game console and a general purpose computer.

Which is exactly what I said.  It's trying to be something in the middle, that's it's entire reason for existing.

4 hours ago, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

That's largely true, but the comparison is a bit of a stretch.

A tablet (or a smartphone, or a laptop) can be made indefinitely useful with just a handful of applications. By contrast, a game console needs a constant stream of titles being ported to it or it will soon become as useful as a doorstop.

Also, if you want to - say - browse the web, it doesn't matter much which browser your tablet provides, as long as it does a decent job. But if you want to play some specific game, no substitute will ever do.

Bottom line: the Surface doesn't have it easy, but that's a walk in the park as compared to a new game console.

 

There are also advantages that game consoles have over tablets; take the Wii for example. It had very few good titles for the first year or two but yet sold like hotcakes. It resonated with users beyond what the market had defined as a "game console". SteamBox has the same opportunity. It doesn't mean they'll be successful. Just looks at Microsoft; the Zune, the Kin, and the Windows Phone. Just because your "PC" can run more diverse software doesn't mean it will resonate with users. 

2 days ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

The OS is extremely relevant when the idea is to take what we know of today as the Steam client and make a "dedicated" consumer device that runs those games. And the reason is because you have N number of games that can run on a Steam + Windows and N/100 games that can run on a Steam + Linux.

So how exactly is the OS then not relevant? It is only irrelevant if the plan is to make a system for which you plan to write all new games, and/or only have the limited number of Linux games available that we have today.

And if any of that was even half-right, then no one would be using Android. As I said, the operating system is irrelevant.

And are you saying that Steam will not provide any tools to port games to Linux? Sounds a tad unlikely.

That I'm not completely ignorant about Linux.

And yet you didn't seem to know that it powers vast majority of smart consumer devices, already Mmmm.

But that thinking it is going to be this wonderful new gaming platform is bound for failure due to the main reason that such a system has no advantages, just disadvantages.

Well, that depends on how you define success. Will they outsell Microsoft? No. Will it make money? Quite possibly. They've started smart by not thinking they can sell thing at a loss and still make a profit. That's a lot smarter than two companies I can think of.

22 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

And if any of that was even half-right, then no one would be using Android. As I said, the operating system is irrelevant.

Oh, I hadn't appreciated you could play Call of Duty and other headline games on Android.

23 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

Well, that depends on how you define success. Will they outsell Microsoft? No. Will it make money? Quite possibly. They've started smart by not thinking they can sell thing at a loss and still make a profit. That's a lot smarter than two companies I can think of. 

Sony and Microsoft makes big piles of dough from PS3 and Xbox despite selling at a loss. That makes them smarter than most.

9 hours ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

And if any of that was even half-right, then no one would be using Android. As I said, the operating system is irrelevant.

Yes, for routers maybe. But absolutely very relevant for a wannabe gaming console that is trying to break into a market where Windows has by far the most and best games. Not sure how you can't see this. Do you really think enough AAA games are going to be written for Linux overnight that it would become more popular than Windows? Really?

And are you saying that Steam will not provide any tools to port games to Linux? Sounds a tad unlikely.

Actually it sounds a tad unlikely that all these wonderful games will just magically pop up and cause this currently non-existent "console" to be more attractive than what you can get with a Windows PC.

And yet you didn't seem to know that it powers vast majority of smart consumer devices, already Mmmm.

Wow, not sure how on earth you got to that conclusion! Can you provide a quote from me to show how I "didn't seem to know" that Linux is in many devices? Thanks in advance for clearing that up.

What I did say was that for those kinds of devices, no-one gives a crap what OS is on them because end-users don't need to interact with the actual OS. Which part of that confused you?

1 day ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Sony and Microsoft makes big piles of dough from PS3 and Xbox despite selling at a loss. That makes them smarter than most.

Do they?

http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/07/xbox-360-and-ps3-losses-total-8-billion-ex-sony-employee-paints-grim-future/

1 day ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Oh, I hadn't appreciated you could play Call of Duty and other headline games on Android.

Which is about a relevant as the price of bottled air because 

a/. Android is doing fine witch out being able to Run Call of Duty

b/. If the Steam Box is a PC then there is still the option of running Call Of Duty if you want to. I don't imagine that Steam are going to stop you running Windows on it. 

21 minutes ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Do they?

http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/07/xbox-360-and-ps3-losses-total-8-billion-ex-sony-employee-paints-grim-future/

I'm not sure where your man is getting his numbers from, but Xbox took 4.24 billion in Q2 last year. Xbox might lose money on the upfront console, but Xbox live, the Kinect, commission and merchandising from games makes it one of Microsoft's more successful products.

a/. Android is doing fine witch out being able to Run Call of Duty

Well, according to Wikipedia that means that 1.6bn hours of online gaming, 100m gamers and 40m players a month are having to turn to devices other than Android to waste their time in the evenings. That's $650m of which Android will get no slice straight out of the gate. That's a hell of a market to be ignoring - and that's just CoD.

Does Android run Fable or Halo or GTA or WoW or Final Fantasy or Uncharted or Mass Effect or The Sims or Just Dance or Resident Evil or Guitar Hero or EvE Online or Wii Sports or BioShock or Deus Ex or Metal Gear Solid or Borderlands or Medal of Honor or or any other major game of 2012?

No? Didn't think so.

Let's put it like this: The world-wide computer games market in 2012 was worth roughly $70bn (PC+console, not mobile). The mobile phone games market is $8bn - the lion's share of which is for iPhone.

Or to put it another way, the worldwide mobile phone games market is only twice as big as Blizzard on its own, and only 12 times bigger than the annual takings of CoD.

You can argue all you want that a console based on Android would be a great thing. But, you see, the fact is that Android doesn't have any good games for it. And that's kind of the whole point of a console.

21 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

Yes, for routers maybe. But absolutely very relevant for a wannabe gaming console that is trying to break into a market where Windows has by far the most and best games. Not sure how you can't see this. Do you really think enough AAA games are going to be written for Linux overnight that it would become more popular than Windows? Really?

*snip*

Routers, phone, set top boxes, top boxes...and guess what? None of them use the command line. Like any operating system kernel, Linux can be skinned to do anything. 

What I did say was that for those kinds of devices, no-one gives a crap what OS is on them because end-users don't need to interact with the actual OS. Which part of that confused you?

Riiighhht. So s you're saying that it won't be successful because it runs Linux, and you're also saying at no one cares that it runs Linux. Glad we cleared that up. 

No one knows if the Steam box will be a success  because the folk behind it haven't explained the marketing plan. 

I don't imagine for a minute that they believe it will take over the world, but I imagine they believe they can make a profit from Steam.  I imagine that the first thing they did was look at the losses on the xBox and PS3 and say, 'Er...let's not do that.'

And I also imagine that for folk who want to play their Windows games, then there will be a way to install Windows. It is a PC after all. 

And I imagine that the folk at Valve looked at the state of the PC market and realised that it might be wise to separate their fortunes from those of Microsoft. If Dell had thought this far ahead then they probably wouldn't be considering giving the money back to the shareholders (oh the irony). 

But on the subject of porting games, it seems that work has already started:

Steam on Linux would be nothing more than a curiosity without a library of games to back it up, but Valve has been hard at work here too, porting some of its own games and helping other developers make their games run on the free OS. At the time of writing there are around fifty games available to play via the beta of Steam for Linux with more being added.

Note how they said Steam, not the Steam box. 

Importantly, this isn't another company using Linux as an embedded system - various flavours of the open source operating system can be found all over the consumer electronics space in everything from PVRs to sniper rifles and is the OS that underpins Android - what Valve is proposing is running Linux on a line of PCs that differ from the one on your desk or your lap only in size and the number of video out ports. Steam for Linux can already be installed on a commodity PC with a suitable graphics processor and Valve aren't going to care if you buy games on your laptop or on a purpose-built set top box. Your money is still good.

Nice touch. 

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/will-the-steam-box-be-the-final-push-linux-needs

Waitasecond! Did someone say sniper rifle??

Why yes, they did!

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/17000-linux-powered-rifle-brings-auto-aim-to-the-real-world/

And look a that. No Command line or gnome interface In sight. Could that mean it is possible for Valve to build a Linux box that doesn't look like Linux? 

Who'd a thunk it.

11 hours ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Routers, phone, set top boxes, top boxes...and guess what? None of them use the command line. Like any operating system kernel, Linux can be skinned to do anything. 

It can't be skinned to suddenly have a huge library of AAA games like you can find on a Windows-based gaming PC. How do you skin Linux to do that?

The problem with your above post is that there is a lot of "imagining" required to get to the outcome you desire. Since we are talking in circles here, why don't we revisit this thread in a year or two and see how the SteamBox rocketed to success? My prediction is that just like other similar attempts (at Linux gaming), it would once again be a big fat fail.

3 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

It can't be skinned to suddenly have a huge library of AAA games like you can find on a Windows-based gaming PC. How do you skin Linux to do that?

The problem with your above post is that there is a lot of "imagining" required to get to the outcome you desire. Since we are talking in circles here, why don't we revisit this thread in a year or two and see how the SteamBox rocketed to success? My prediction is that just like other similar attempts (at Linux gaming), it would once again be a big fat fail.

I wonder what OS the Wii is running? It didn't have a lot of games when it first came out but it sold like hot cakes for several years. Nintendo tapped a market that didn't exists before the Wii came along. Maybe the SteamBox can do the same.

Nintendo/Sony/MS spends huge amounts of money upfront (and afterwards) to get high quality games on their consoles. Do you really think Nintendo didn't invest heavily into R&D even during the initial time when they didn't have a lot of games? I don't see Valve doing this.

What would be more desirable to a gamer:

1. A living-room ready Windows gaming PC + Steam client.
2. A living-room ready SteamBox with Linux + Steam client.

Unless AAA games gets exclusively created for the SteamBox, #1 will always win by a large margin. Not sure how you guys can't get this. Nobody says the Linux fans/ABMers won't buy a SteamBox, but if someone is truly into it just for the games (read: the masses), #1 will always trump #2.

 "living-room ready Windows gaming PC + Steam client" when games that hardcore gamers want come out on the consoles first and in some cases never make it to Windows? I know, I know...someday the Xbox will be running Windows so they'll be able to write an XBox game that can run on Windows too just like you can run any Windows 8 app on a Windows Phone 8 device and vise versa. 

You assume that what Steam is building is just a gaming platform to play games that appear to hardcore gamers. Maybe it's not the games that the platform can play but how they are played. Valve seems to provide a couple of ideas along these lines in this article.

Like you said Nintendo didn't have a lot of games when the Wii came out. People didn't buy the console because they new Nintendo was investing a lot in R&D and game development. They bought it because it bought a new experience to game play that was accessible to a wider audience.

I'm not convinced that the Steambox will succeed but I'm certainly not drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid of "if it doesn't run on Windows it will suck." There are plenty of WinDiv employees that are doing a fine job of chugging that stuff down. I just hope they start mixing it with a splash of vodka for their own good. 

"Linux powered sniper rifle"

So what you are saying is Linux kills people. I'm glad there are less psychopathic OSes out there like Windows that I can keep around my children.

We are not comparing Windows to consoles, we are comparing a SteamBox branded Linux gaming PC to a SteamBox branded Windows gaming PC. Agreed that if someone wants a "living room ready" gaming system then a console is better as there is no computer knowledge required but that is not what the comparison is here. It is whether SteamBox is better off shipping with Windows vs Linux.

I never said "if it doesn't run on Windows it will suck." Once again a quote where I said or even implied this would be great, thanks. I'm saying for a gaming PC/console, existing content is king when you want to have a success. I'm certainly not a MS Kool-Aid drinking fanboy. I can point to many posts on this forum where I complain bitterly about MS, including hating Windows 8 so don't give me that crap.

I'm asking why would you go with Linux as a gaming PC/console when with the exact same hardware you can get a gaming PC/console that starts out with an already huge catalog of existing games? It is a simple question, and yet no-one has been able to give me any advantage that it will have over a Windows, while I keep pointing out a gigantic disadvantage. The only advantage I can see is you don't need to pay for the Windows license, which is roughly the cost of one AAA game. But then you get a much much bigger selection of games out the gate. It's a no-brainer.

I'm not sure why you keep assuming that the userland that runs on SteamBox will be available to people without SteamBox. A unified, optimized and coherent software and hardware experience for video gaming and media is what Valve will probably trying to sell. It is too early to tell, of course. But it is a bit different than building a Windows machine and slapping some blinky lights to it and selling it at a premium as a "gaming PC". Dell and HP can do that just fine.

15 hours ago, Bass wrote

I'm still unsure with what your infatuation with Linux here is. As mentioned, Linux is a kernel that is in use for lots of totally random and different things. The userland (stuff outside the kernel) is what is interesting and the different aspect, it's the main piece of software that separates the sniper rifle from the supercomputer.

The problem with Linux as a gaming platform has nothing to do with the design of the kernel. It has everything to do with the fact that games for desktops are binary compatible with Windows, but by-and-large are not binary compatible with Linux.

Steam isn't in a position to take DirectX/Windows binary products like CoD and make them run binary-compatibly and fast on Linux, whereas they probably could make games designed to run on normal Linux work straight out of the box. The problem is that DX/Win is where the money is, and so that's what developers write games for.

If Steambox doesn't run AAA games out-of-the-box and within days of Launch on other platforms, it'll never be more than an also-ran.

But yeah, if Valve does nothing but slap Ubuntu on a PC and put some blinky lights Valve logo on it, I agree probably won't be successful.

Obviously they have to sweeten the deal a bit. The success of this thing revolves around how much they can leverage themselves as a premier game developer. I think Valve should make some exclusive DLC for SteamBox owners at least, if not an exclusive game or two. Definitely have some exclusive SteamBox content at launch. I'm sure they have a few tricks up their sleeves like this.

11 minutes ago, Bass wrote

Ironically, Xbox 360 seems to be doing just fine being largely incompatible with Windows games. Valve has committed to porting all their games to GNU/Linux x86/x86-64, and they have already ported a big chunk of them and other game development houses are following suit, so there is definitely going to be a lot of titles available at launch, probably more than any consoles had.

I'm sure Steambox will be as successful as the Xbox. Just as soon as they get all of the major studios to support their platform, make sure that the hardware is comparatively cheap to the Xbox and the PS3 (i.e. by selling it at a loss), and by aggressively standardizing and branding the device hardware.

They'd also need to get some exclusive AAA titles (like how Xbox has all of Fable and Halo for instance) in order to enter the market, and let's not forget that getting exclusivity on an AAA game for an entirely new console means writing the game yourself, or buying the company that makes it (Fable and Halo are both MS).

So yeah, if Steam was willing to have games that runs on Steambox but not Steam (since that would dilute the exclusivity of the titles on their console), was willing to buy other games companies and put billions of dollars into entering this market as a level-player in the console business, then yes, maybe Steambox and Xbox 360 might be a viable comparison.

But until then, not so much.

22 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio:

We are not comparing Windows to consoles, we are comparing a SteamBox branded Linux gaming PC to a SteamBox branded Windows gaming PC. Agreed that if someone wants a "living room ready" gaming system then a console is better as there is no computer knowledge required but that is not what the comparison is here. It is whether SteamBox is better off shipping with Windows vs Linux.

I'm just saying the argument is too narrowly scoped. Sure a gamer who wants to play Windows games would be better served on a Windows platform. I'm suggesting that the market for the SteamBox might be different.

I never said "if it doesn't run on Windows it will suck." Once again a quote where I said or even implied this would be great, thanks. I'm saying for a gaming PC/console, existing content is king when you want to have a success. I'm certainly not a MS Kool-Aid drinking fanboy. I can point to many posts on this forum where I complain bitterly about MS, including hating Windows 8 so don't give me that crap.

I never said you did. I said I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. Sorry you took it personal.

I'm asking why would you go with Linux as a gaming PC/console when with the exact same hardware you can get a gaming PC/console that starts out with an already huge catalog of existing games? It is a simple question, and yet no-one has been able to give me any advantage that it will have over a Windows, while I keep pointing out a gigantic disadvantage. The only advantage I can see is you don't need to pay for the Windows license, which is roughly the cost of one AAA game. But then you get a much much bigger selection of games out the gate. It's a no-brainer.

Because maybe they are going a different direction with the SteamBox; not just a gaming console but a different experience altogether. I do think it will be an utter fail if they follow Microsoft's pattern of releasing just a PC/gaming console that doesn't bring something unique to the market and/or exceeds what the market currently has to offer. If they just puke out an unfinished turd like Windows 8 and say "it will get better later" they're not going to get many takers. They certainly don't have the lock-in that Windows does in shipping on all new PCs that would afford them the same illusion that Microsoft has in thinking that W8 and WP8 are well accepted by the market or is in some form a "success".

22 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I'm sure Steambox will be as successful as the Xbox. Just as soon as they get all of the major studios to support their platform, make sure that the hardware is comparatively cheap to the Xbox and the PS3 (i.e. by selling it at a loss), and by aggressively standardizing and branding the device hardware.

They'd also need to get some exclusive AAA titles (like how Xbox has all of Fable and Halo for instance) in order to enter the market, and let's not forget that getting exclusivity on an AAA game for an entirely new console means writing the game yourself, or buying the company that makes it (Fable and Halo are both MS).

So yeah, if Steam was willing to have games that runs on Steambox but not Steam (since that would dilute the exclusivity of the titles on their console), was willing to buy other games companies and put billions of dollars into entering this market as a level-player in the console business, then yes, maybe Steambox and Xbox 360 might be a viable comparison.

But until then, not so much.

I agree the chances this will unseat the major consoles is pretty slim, especially considering the billions of dollars of investment the major consoles spent to get where they are..

But when you structure your business model such that you don't need to sell millions of consoles to make a return, it doesn't really matter. Like if I make $200 per console and my initial R&D was $250k, all I'd have to sell is 1250 consoles in total to make my investment back. I'll be more conservative at say $1 million initial R&D investment, which can easily pay for like 7-8 full time engineers working a whole year on the project, and you'd still make your money back with selling 5000 consoles.

It's hard to say how popular this thing will be without knowing what Valve is planning though. One thing I can say is it's pretty silly to underestimate Valve's capabilities to make stuff people will want to buy, and unlike their competitors they do it without much of any public capital. The company is practically legendary in the games industry, and they show they can start entire new market without even trying (Steam).

55 minutes ago, Bass wrote

But when you structure your business model such that you don't need to sell millions of consoles to make a return, it doesn't really matter. Like if I make $200 per console and my initial R&D was $250k, all I'd have to sell is 1250 consoles in total to make my investment back. I'll be more conservative at say $1 million initial R&D investment, which can easily pay for like 7-8 full time engineers working a whole year on the project, and you'd still make your money back with selling 5000 consoles.

Why would anyone pay you $1000 for the hardware, +$100 for assembly, +$200 for the retail cut + $200 for tax + $200 for your profit = $1700 for a device that has no exclusive games, and can't be used to do anything other than play games you can already play the games you can already play on your Windows desktop? Why wouldn't you just pay $1000 for a big Windows box and put Steam on it, and you can use the $700 bucks that you have left over to buy yourself a new Xbox and a PS3.

At the moment I'm not convinced that they'll sell 5000 boxes. Consoles are not an easy market to get into, and I think SteamBox doesn't really have any features that anyone wants. It's going to be expensive for the hardware compared with other consoles (because of lack of subsidy), it'll have no exclusive titles, and even if it plays all Steam games, there's a whole load of major titles it'll be missing out on from Windows/PC, Xbox and PS3.

But at least Ballmer knew the initial price and a basic idea of it's capabilities. We don't know even know that much. It's like me saying Windows 9 will be a failure.

There is a lot of buzz around this product. The fact that there are people that are going to such absurd and unusual lengths to spread negativity about this product without knowing anything about it.. that this thread is 5 pages long is interesting in its own right. When I see lots of  people talking about something, either dismissive or not, it personally increases my own desire to understand the product. It signals to me that this thing is has a good chance to be a "Big Deal", assuming Valve doesn't f**k it up somehow. We can't know.

32 minutes ago, Bass wrote

There is a lot of buzz around this product. The fact that there are people that are going to such absurd and unusual lengths to spread negativity about this product without knowing anything about it.. that this thread is 5 pages long is interesting in its own right. When I see lots of  people talking about something, either dismissive or not, it personally increases my own desire to understand the product. It signals to me that this thing is has a good chance to be a "Big Deal", assuming Valve doesn't f**k it up somehow. We can't know.

There's a lot of buzz around cats with their heads through a piece of bread.

Anyway, I wish Steam well. Let's revisit this thread in a few years and see how they do.

This reminds me a bit of OnLive. The same sort of buzz was around it and I knew at the time it was going to be a big flop. Yes not quite the same thing but just someone else that thought it was easy to take on the Big Boys. How's that working out...? Check this out.