Valve's Steam Machines Are More About Safeguarding PCs Than Killing Consoles 296
An anonymous reader writes "CES has come and gone, and we've gotten a chance to see many different models of Valve's Steam Machines. They're being marketed as a device for a living room, and people are wondering if they'll be able to compete with the Big-3 console manufacturers. But this article argues that Valve isn't going after the consoles — instead, Steam Machines are part of a long-term plan to keep the PC gaming industry healthy. Quoting: 'Over the years, Valve has gone from simply evangelizing the PC platform — it once flew journalists in from around the world pretty much just to tell them it was great — to actively protecting it, and what we're seeing now is just the beginning of that push. Take SteamOS. To you and me, it's a direct interface for Steam based on Linux that currently has poor software support. To Valve, though, it's a first step in levering development, publishing, gameplay and community away from their reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term. ... As for Steam Machines, they are a beachhead, not an atom bomb. They are meant to sell modestly. ... The answer is that Valve is thinking in decades, not console generations.'"
What's the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't keeping the PC game industry healthy by putting SteamBoxes in the living room the same thing as a console-killer?
The more open platforms available, the better.
I just need Steam to create a Plex app on Steam and I'm all in.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
SteamOS is Debian, so if there is something for Debian that sorts out Plex.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
I'm already running a Windows nettop box with Plex Home Theater running on it. I want Plex Home Theater running from inside Steam.
As it is, I leave Plex running 24/7. I don't even use a mouse or keyboard anymore. Everything is controlled with my remote.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Does XBMC have a massive library of games that I can play in my living room?
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
We're talking about Steam boxes, which run SteamOS, which is Debian based and therefore can run XBMC.
There is a launcher from XBMC [xbmc.org] that will open Steam in Big Picture Mode.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:3)
I just need Steam to create a Plex app on Steam and I'm all in.
Here you go. https://forums.plex.tv/index.php/topic/87253-linux-builds/ [forums.plex.tv] Feel free to send me money if you want. :)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
No, I want a Steam app that is integrated. I'm already running a Plex server on unRaid. I want living room convenience, not command line hell.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Personal computer vs. appliance (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, a computer primarily designed for gaming is a console.
So is a Wintendo [catb.org] a "console". Another definition of a "console" is a computer whose case and UI are designed for use with a TV as its display.
Though you might want to draw a line so that it's a console when the manufacturer spends extra effort to limit its computational abilities in order to make it cheaper. Which, IMHO, does not compute.
To me, a "personal computer" is a piece of computing hardware where the person who owns it controls what computing it performs. For example, a device running SteamOS (or other X11/Linux distributions), Windows, OS X, or Android is a personal computer. A device running operating system whose publisher has veto power over apps, such as Windows RT, Windows Phone, Apple iOS, Nintendo iOS (Wii, Wii U), Sony GameOS (PS3), Sony Orbis OS (PS4), is an "appliance".
Re:Personal computer vs. appliance (Score:2)
To me, a "personal computer" is a piece of computing hardware where the person who owns it controls what computing it performs. For example, a device running SteamOS (or other X11/Linux distributions), Windows, OS X, or Android is a personal computer. A device running operating system whose publisher has veto power over apps, such as Windows RT, Windows Phone, Apple iOS, Nintendo iOS (Wii, Wii U), Sony GameOS (PS3), Sony Orbis OS (PS4), is an "appliance".
This! I hate the way "PC" is often used to refer to a Windows box, when a Linux/BSD installation is generally much more personal(ized) than the same old Windows you see everywhere. That said, this is a matter of degree, so it's hard to draw a line -- a closed OS makes computing more limited, but even a Free OS is often handicapped by non-free BIOS and firmware.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Isn't keeping the PC game industry healthy by putting SteamBoxes in the living room the same thing as a console-killer?
Not quite. The primary goal is the protection of the PC platform (which is Valve's revenue source).
The console killing properties are just an added bonus.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:3)
The problem is, if you want to define a SteamBox as a console, the PC industry is done for.
Because the cheapest one is $500. And the CES announcements show them going to $1300. Tell me how many "cheaper games" you have to buy to justify the $800 premium over an Xbone? (Especially since well, both PSN and Xbox Live also run sales).
And how long are they going to last? I mean, the Xbone and PS4 are going to probably last at least 5 years (the past gen PS3 and Xbox360 are pushing 7 and 8 years). Will today's $500 SteamBox last 5 years? Or are PC developers going to say 2 years from now "Today's steambox is super cool, let's target it!" and leave everyone who bought a $500 SteamBox in the dust?
And nevermind the Tier 1 PC maker who integrates it all on a motherboard and releases it for $400, screwing over everyone who paid $500. If you're going to subject your console to wild price differentials and all that, there better be a good reason other than technical gobbledegook. Titan this, 386 that 6970 over there, foobarbaz. Sorry, people will see "SteamBox" and expect them to work alike. They're buying a console, not a PC.
If Valve plays this wrong, PC developers might need to support Intel 5000 graphics (Haswell) for the next 5+ years running at 1080p because those were the cheapest.
If Valve wants these as gaming PCs, they need to be put near the PCs side. Unfortunately, the way they're positioned now, they're competing against consoles. And outside the big three, the only console maker to have some success is... Apple (more inadvertently than anything). Even the heavily hyped Ouya is struggling.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
The 1300$ model is of course for those who want a status-symbol, i.e. the high price is a feature.
Basically the classic consoles are the printer/toner sales-model: You get the hardware relatively cheap, but you pay through the nose afterwards.
For an open platform that is impossible, so for the Steambox, you have to pay a little bit more for the hardware (i.e. about 500-700$), but you save money on the software.
Surely, there is a place for the printer/toner sales-model, therefore the PS3/XBone have their place - but not everybody likes it that way. (Of course for the brainwashed the fact that different products may use different sales-models is very, very hard to grasp.) So there is place for the open sales-model as well.
But the Steambox has some other advantage: It is also a PC, and you can use it for everything a PC can do:
For example if you use a tablet for EMail/Web and have only moderate PC-use (write Christmas cards once per year, etc.) - and your PC gets old, you may buy a Steambox instead of upgrading the PC. In that case you save money - and space because you can scrap that desk where the PC is sitting on.
So there is definitely a market for the Steambox.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Small form factor (Score:2)
You can build one much cheaper than a console.
Case and all? I was under the impression that the small form factor needed to fit in next to a TV was a premium market segment, that PC cases the size of a PS4 and motherboards and power supplies to fit in them were more expensive than a "normal" tower case, motherboard, and power supply.
And some people will.
But do these people have the financial power to get these cheaper-than-console Steam Machines into stores?
Re:Small form factor (Score:2)
Re:Small form factor (Score:3)
OK, how about this. http://www.directron.com/cheap-save-pc-3.html [directron.com] Use the dropdown to pick the Gforce GT630 for $70 and the entire package is $317. You can do better picking some parts, but this is a full package, assembled and tested.
Terrific! a "dual core" processor (admittedly at 3GHz) and 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 memory compared to 8 CPU's and 8 GB memory of the latest consoles. Oh great the PC does have a DVD RW drive compared to a BD/DVD read only drive. Sorry this is not the same as the latest consoles and you have not even added in the cost of a keyboard, mouse and possibly a controller which if you are a serious gamer is not going to be under a $80. Also I am quite sure which device I would prefer next to my HDTV and it is not that.
:).
Of course this site is in the USA and is no help for people in other countries who would normally pay 10% to 40% more. In Australia we would pay AU$549 for the PS4 (if you can get one, since it is out of stock at the moment) and AU$599 for the XBOne. AU$1.00 = US$0.90 as of the time of this posting..
Still to be fair the PC you have the link to is quite acceptable for general use although you would have to install you own OS which in the case of a Microsoft OS is also going to cost unless you are one of the "Green Parrot Brigade"
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
I was under the impression that a SteamBox is nothing but a PC built with certain minimum requirements? Go looking at PC's from those same SteamBox vendors and I'm sure you'll find some that look great, but that are pretty darned expensive, too.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the SteamBox and keeping things open is that Valve sees where Microsoft is heading with Windows 8 and beyond. They're heading for Apple/console model for Windows where they get full approval of all software and a significant cut of all sales. It's not good for consumers and it's not good for Valve. I'm a little surprised more software companies are not joining them in launching non-game software for them, but they may be more focused on the tablet market.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've read, you can install any software you want on the SteamBox, or even run the OS on your own hardware. It's not the same model as consoles, iOS, or what Microsoft is heading for. It's the same model as Linux, Android, and what traditional Windows is.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
From what I've read, you can install any software you want on the SteamBox, or even run the OS on your own hardware. It's not the same model as consoles, iOS, or what Microsoft is heading for. It's the same model as Linux, Android, and what traditional Windows is.
I agree. Plus: As it is Linux, it is pretty damn hard to ship it with backdoors nobody finds. To me, the main reason for still using windows are games. If current games come to Linux, dual boot becomes an option. Working and most games on steam OS, a virtual box for some applications and dual boot as a fallback for some games.
I don't know about you, but after we know (!) that MS really builds backdoors into its products, I will swith. Gamer or not.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are completely disingenuous. As a practical matter, it will not be simple to "sideload" 3rd party software on a Steambox. It will practically impossible for another store to compete on this platform.
Nonsense: SteamBox is a computer with Debian + Steam + some specific drivers and some tweaking. Everything that is available for Debian can be directly installed on SteamOS.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is never going to happen. Consoles are commodity hardware *at launch* with the specific target of playing games on one platform in one way. With PCs, you've got video cards that cost a couple hundred dollars more than both the XB1 and PS4 *combined*.
A four and five star restaurant will never compete with McDonald's on price. What they *can* compete on is not serving you fetid shit in a paper wrapper. That requires that people give a damn. If people are just fine scarfing down a shitty box of styrofoam chicken nuggets, then you're screwed. It also requires that people make quality products for it. So many PC games are just shitty ports of console games, hindered by limitations of targeting consoles and leaving PCs as an afterthought. Then, you're crippled by trying to operate a four or five star restaurant when you're being supplied the same shitty ingredients as McDonald's.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
That is never going to happen. Consoles are commodity hardware *at launch* with the specific target of playing games on one platform in one way. With PCs, you've got video cards that cost a couple hundred dollars more than both the XB1 and PS4 *combined*.
Whitebox PCs are as "commodity" as it gets. And there are Nvidia graphics cards that meet the specs under $100.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
So all you're looking to do is meet the absolute minimum requirements and *maybe* match the performance and experience of a console, but with a PC box? What is the point of that? The only reason I would want to build a box to put the SteamOS on and attach to my home theater is if I could replicate the true PC experience on it. That means high resolution, high framerate, high graphical fidelity. I'm not going to accomplish that on $500 worth of parts.
Six months after release, you will be able to match console hardware for under $200, and double it for under $500. PC hardware keeps advancing, and consoles stay static for years. And as for resolution, these days everything is 1080p. There are a few 4k TVs out there, but a 30hz, I doubt gamers are interested. So low end still does everything your TV can show.
Re: What's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Steambox is not a PC.
You want to look at that again? It is EXACTLY a PC. You can actually take any PC with a decent graphics card and install the software yourself! The controller is not even required, but I would want one. It is just not Windows. And while Steam does have DRM, the OS does not, unlike Windows. Also, no artificial limitations, like my desktop that has 24gig of ram under Linux, but Windows only sees 16... Yes, I know why... Now. After I installed it.
Re: What's the difference? (Score:2)
+1
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
You have video cards that cost twice as much but aren't really needed. You can get by just fine on something much, much, cheaper and still play nearly every game available.
Video cards are a penis compensator.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:3)
499 US dollars (Score:2)
Re:499 US dollars (Score:2)
Yea, but if everyone you hang out with has $2000 PCs and they're playing team fortress all night long, now you're not shit out of luck. You can pick one up for $500 and hang with your friends. Not only that, but if you know how to use a screw driver you can build your own steam box for cheaper.
Re:499 US dollars (Score:3)
Of course if you don't want to use it as a doorstop, you will need software for it:
XBox One: A handful of games at typically 50$
Steambox: Already over hundred games at typically 20$
And that is exactly why the Steambox will be a success.
Re:499 US dollars (Score:2)
And that is bad how? It is actually very good.
Considering the very low entry price (buy and plug new HDD(*) into my rig, install SteamOS) I actually might do it over a week-end just to kill the boredom by playing some of the sentimental junk.
(*) Or even cheaper: pick old (potentially failing) HDD from the pile on the shelf.
Re:499 US dollars (Score:2)
Re:499 US dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for building my own gaming box, especially if it removes Microsoft from the picture.
Explain (Score:5, Interesting)
"...reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term."
Really, because my experience with Linux and backwards / forwards support for both software and hardware has been vastly worse than Windows from XP through 8. Sure before XP, Windows 9x was terrible, but are we really going to keep basing derp derp FUD on a 5 year window of hard lessons from nearly 15 years ago?
Can we just fess up and admit that SteamOS is an effort predicated on a personal beef Gabe Newell has with Microsoft and especially the fact that Windows 8 included it's own store and that store was not Steam. The story is well documented and the whole industry is going to blow a lot of money on development just to satisfy one man's ego.
Re:Explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever his true motivation is, it makes sense from a business standpoint. Microsoft would love to become for Windows what Apple is for OS X / iOS, and Valve doesn't want that - it's understandable. From a certain angle, Steam machines are not unlike Google+: there are some diehard fans that would kill for it, many go like "why do we need another [social network / console platform]?" and the company behind it is big enough and has enough mindshare that the product is guaranteed to have some visibility even if it is not quite on par with what the rest of the market has to offer, and eventually gain enough of a market share to make sense, even with all backwards / forwards support issues you pointed out. And for consumers more competition is always good, so sure why not.
Re: Explain (Score:2)
Barrier to prevent a crash (Score:2)
Unfortunately Microsoft seem to be looking to looking to emulate Apple by taking a cut on every piece of software released for the platform, and raising the barriers for entry for indie developers in the process.
How is an entry barrier necessarily unfortunate? Entry barriers exist for a large part to prevent conditions like those that led to the 1983 crash [slashdot.org].
Re:Barrier to prevent a crash (Score:2)
Unfortunately Microsoft seem to be looking to looking to emulate Apple by taking a cut on every piece of software released for the platform, and raising the barriers for entry for indie developers in the process.
How is an entry barrier necessarily unfortunate? Entry barriers exist for a large part to prevent conditions like those that led to the 1983 crash [slashdot.org].
It's quite simple, the market for computer games was very naive back then, people believed hyperbolic quotes on the back of games, and the misleading screenshots and cover art. We are now dealing with at least 2 generations of tech savvy consumers, and poor games simply won't sell, it's not like poor releases can taint the industry anymore on the same scale as the early days of cheap computing. Barriers to entry enforced by dominating entities such as Microsoft just mean that they get to define the playing field to suit themselves, whereas more competition means the playing field has more of a chance of being defined by the consumer or developer.
Re:Explain (Score:5, Interesting)
This quote makes zero sense: "...reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term." Really, because my experience with Linux and backwards / forwards support for both software and hardware has been vastly worse than Windows from XP through 8. Sure before XP, Windows 9x was terrible, but are we really going to keep basing derp derp FUD on a 5 year window of hard lessons from nearly 15 years ago? Can we just fess up and admit that SteamOS is an effort predicated on a personal beef Gabe Newell has with Microsoft and especially the fact that Windows 8 included it's own store and that store was not Steam. The story is well documented and the whole industry is going to blow a lot of money on development just to satisfy one man's ego.
Linux supports older hardware than windows 7 and 8, no question. Regarding the software... You definitely have a point there. Almost. The Linux kernel itself actually has backwards compatibility for userspace software going back quite a bit. It's mostly glibc that breaks this. If it isn't happening already, it will eventually. You'll be downloading games from that simply ship with their own libraries. I believe a lot of Windows software works this way.
You can actually get a lot of old loki games to run in linux by installing older versions of various libraries. Although, you do encounter some issues. For example, Simcity 3000 won't give you sound since it wants to use esd (which hasn't seen use in years), but the game will otherwise run. This takes some work to setup, but if the games on steam do this for you, it's a non-issue.
PulseAudio can emulate ESD (Score:3)
For example, Simcity 3000 won't give you sound since it wants to use esd (which hasn't seen use in years), but the game will otherwise run.
Wikipedia's article about PulseAudio [wikipedia.org] claims that PulseAudio can emulate ESD. Or is this emulation too broken to work with SimCity 3000?
Difficulty of greenlighting and modding (Score:2)
Can we just fess up and admit that SteamOS is an effort predicated on a personal beef Gabe Newell has with Microsoft
I'll consider that when you answer this question: Is it easier for a startup video game developer to get a game greenlit on Xbox One or on Steam? Is it easier for a user to install a community-maintained game mod into a game from Microsoft stores or from Steam? Perhaps Gabe N.'s beef is not with Microsoft as much as it is with the concept of people being locked into unmoddable major-label games. Case in point: had Half-Life been a console exclusive or otherwise lacked modding tools, there would be no Counter-Strike.
Re:Difficulty of greenlighting and modding (Score:2)
As far as Indie developers go, they can self publish pretty easily to the PC or sell on Steam without the need of a dedicated SteamBox or SteamOS right now. The end user generally benefits from keeping everything on their preferred platform, Windows or OSX. The issues I take with SteamOS are the propaganda and a lot of reinventing the wheel.
In that case it's about monitor size (Score:2)
As far as Indie developers go, they can self publish pretty easily to the PC or sell on Steam without the need of a dedicated SteamBox or SteamOS right now.
That's true of single-player or online games. But for games designed around local multiplayer, such as fighting games, how many potential end users have a PC connected to a suitably large (television sized) monitor? The advantage of a Steam Machine over a Windows PC or a Mac is that the median monitor on a Steam Machine is expected to be bigger.
Pretty much (Score:2)
Yes, MS may eventually go out of business, or discontinue Windows. They also might eventually change the way it works so substantially as to break things. However, it is a pretty unlikely scenario, they have pretty good history and a good definition of their support lifecycle.
Nothing in the universe is certain, of course, but neither would be something like Steam Box. Being Linux based doesn't mean anything. I mean, suppose all of a sudden Intel, AMD, and nVidia got together and decided to totally change everything. New ISA, no more DirectX or OpenGL, etc, etc. Everything would need to be reported, redeveloped, and it would be a massive problem.
Now that is exceedingly unlikely to happen, but just another example that you can't have some solution that is perfect, forever, and will never go away no matter what.
Hell look at the console market. You can't rely on shit there, yet it still seems to do well. You don't know if a new console will come out, if it does when, when it does if it'll be backwards compatible, etc, etc.
This idea that a Steam Box is needed for some kind of stability is silly. The parent has it right: It is an ego thing, and a thing to try and protect Steam. Valve loves Steam because it means they can fuck around and do as they please, no worries about money because it rolls in for very little effort. However if people started using the Windows Store to get their software instead (not likely, Microsoft is making a big hash of it) then Steam's market could dry up and that would suck for Valve.
Re:Pretty much (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, suppose all of a sudden Intel, AMD, and nVidia got together and decided to totally change everything. New ISA, no more DirectX or OpenGL, etc, etc. Everything would need to be reported, redeveloped, and it would be a massive problem.
This wouldn't happen, because, as you say, everything would need to be re-developed, and it would put these companies out of business. I don't just mean Linux software would need to be re-ported, I mean they'd have to wait for all-new software of every kind to be developed to run on their chips. It's not like MS can port Windows to a whole new ISA in 3 months and the companies which use OpenGL/DX would be able to get together and develop a new graphics API and port all their software to it in that time. It would take years for the dust to settle, and I'm just talking about proprietary software here, and totally neglecting open-source stuff. So the very idea is just ludicrous.
This idea that a Steam Box is needed for some kind of stability is silly.
No it's not. It's about control. With Win8, MS is trying to take more control over the PC software ecosystem by emulating Apple's "app store", and they're also moving development in a new direction with the Metro UI. Independent software companies which are mostly tied to the MS platform, and don't like the way it's going, would be stupid to put all their eggs in one basket, which of course is why you see more software for Macs these days that 10 years ago. Valve's direction makes total sense: they're trying to get more control over the platform their software runs on, and that's pretty easy to do with Linux since it's open, allowing you to build custom OS builds easily, and also allowing software vendors a certain amount of power in dictating the direction of development of the OS if they wish (and the existing players agree with them and accept their patches), which you simply don't get with a proprietary OS vendor.
The parent has it right: It is an ego thing, and a thing to try and protect Steam.
That's not an "ego" thing, that's good business sense. Putting your company's future in the hands of another company which doesn't have your interests at heart, and which actually competes with your company in some ways (MS has their own games division), is utterly stupid.
Re:Pretty much (Score:2)
You see more software for MacOS because Apple has achieved a significant market share, so there are now enough users for it to be profitable to port to the platform.
SteamOS portends to do the same for Linux -- provide a large enough user community that it's worth writing software for. More importantly, it standardizes the gaming APIs so that game developers have a known platform to code to. Right now, there is too much divergence on the particular sound APIs and display software versions in what is collectively called "Linux" for it to be safe to port to. While there are big players in the server space (RedHat/CentOS/OracleLinux), the same is not true of the desktop, and that has seriously hindered uptake by the developers.
As per usual, it's been a chicken and egg problem. People won't go with a Linux box for the sake of games because there is a dearth of games. People won't develop for Linux because there is a dearth of users.
Re:Pretty much (Score:2)
Microsoft breaks things all the time, just look at Windows 8.
In fact they not only break things accidentally, they quite often do it on purpose to force upgrades. They already promised to delete all downloadable support software for Windows XP when support runs out. Why? Because the bandwidth costs so much?
At my workplace the IT department is already struggling for over 2 years with the transition from XP to 7 because there is just so much software and hardware that doesn't work with 7. The "solution" is to put the XP-machines, where no Win7-transition is possible on isolated non-internet-connected networks.
So yes, Microsoft breaks a lot on every update.
Re:Explain (Score:2)
I think his point is that right now, if Windows dies, PC gaming basically dies.
He wants to get a non-trivial number of Linux PC game boxes out there so that more people are targeting PCs, not Windows.
Re:Explain (Score:2)
Can we just fess up and admit that SteamOS is an effort predicated on a personal beef Gabe Newell has with Microsoft and especially the fact that Windows 8 included it's own store and that store was not Steam. The story is well documented and the whole industry is going to blow a lot of money on development just to satisfy one man's ego.
Yea, because Gabe is a jedi master who makes other people do things he wants.
Please, stop the nonsense. I can bet my left nut that Gabe and people working on Steam machines know a thing or two more than you about PC hardware and/or gaming, and are not just mind-controlled by Gabe.
Reasons and everything else have also been well documented, and are certainly not based on a hunch that someone has about Gabe's ego.
Re:Explain (Score:2)
This quote makes zero sense:
"...reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term."
Really, because my experience with Linux and backwards / forwards support for both software and hardware has been vastly worse than Windows from XP through 8. Sure before XP, Windows 9x was terrible, but are we really going to keep basing derp derp FUD on a 5 year window of hard lessons from nearly 15 years ago?
If this was early 2012 I would have agreed with you. However in the past 2 years Microsoft have shown what appears to be an attempt to abandon the PC / monitor model of computing chasing endlessly the touch/tablet cashcow that others are milking. They have almost self destructively released a new version of Windows which has almost universal hate, is difficult to use with a mouse / keyboard and have thrown 20 years of UI design lessons out the window in the process. Worse still when the users complained they said they'd listen and released Windows 8.1 completely ignoring the primary complaints of the system.
An OS from a company that appears to consider PCs and customers toxic can not be relied upon in the long term. Yes the rest of your comment is most definitely an element of it too, but that doesn't change the fact that Windows appears to be an attempt at Microsoft leaving the OS business.
I doubt it (Score:2)
This + tablets = even lower PC sales.
Oh, well (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh, well (Score:2)
Yes. And there is one major point: Hiding backdoors like the ones implemented in the consoles and Windows is not as easy on linux. After NSA, even though I am gamer, there is no way in hell that I'll be running a closed source OS on my machines in a year or so except for dual boot from time to time. Starting steam could unmount the drives with my data on linux, the reast is more or less open, so a backdoor is harder to hide.
To me, that counts. A closed source device that listens to every word spoken in my room and looks for the number of people and what they are doing? You got to be kidding me. I do not care why Gabe does it. I want it. On my own machine, built by myself. Able to play current games (half life 3! Now!) and do serious stuff on a platform I could trust considerable more than any NSA-infested closed source system?
This is a nobrainer.
Re:Oh, well (Score:3, Insightful)
it simply isn't going to work well if you try to run it in an environment that absolutely needs to be 100% compatible with Windows software and standards. However, this is true for Mac OSX too, and I don't ever see anyone saying "Mac OS is not a serious desktop OS".
I guess it depends on how you define "serious desktop OS." I don't think most people define it your way, e.g. "100% Windows compatible." I think most people define it as being explicitly supported "out of the box" by a critical mass of parts of the PC ecosystem:
The reason is that most people who use computers - not most Slashdotters, but most people - want to buy things with which other important things will "just work." Geeks will seek out how they can make things work in unapproved configurations - and will find it great fun! - but the vast majority of computer users and even corporate IT departments will not.
So basically unless you can walk into a Best Buy or something and walk up and down the aisles of boxed software, games, peripherals, monitors, yadda yadda and see your OS listed under in the "Supported Systems" or "System Requirements" fine print on the boxes, then you are not a serious desktop OS for the mass market.
Your mileage may vary - I am just proposing a definition based on mass market usage. There are Slashdotters, I'm sure, who use Plan 9 every day and it is a "serious desktop OS" to them. But for the world at large, I think most people find a different definition.
Re:Oh, well (Score:3)
I think most people define it as being explicitly supported "out of the box" by a critical mass of parts of the PC ecosystem:
No, a "serious desktop OS" is something that does the tasks you require of it. Everyone has different requirements.
Major commercial software vendors
There's tons of software that doesn't work on MacOS, including lots of enterprise software. So Macs aren't "serious desktops"?
Networking equipment, printer/scanners, and other accessory vendors
I don't know of any serious printers (not cheap POS Best Buy printers) that don't work in Linux, nor any network equipment.
Native commercial game ports/support
Why the hell is this important? How many large corporations give a shit about commercial game support for their office workers' desktop PCs?
Support from ISPs, cloud backup services, etc.
Again, not important if you're a corporation or government or any serious institution.
So basically unless you can walk into a Best Buy
No serious business gives two shits about anything sold in Best Buy. Corporate IT departments do not shop at Best Buy.
Your mileage may vary - I am just proposing a definition based on mass market usage
IT departments don't give a shit about mass market usage. They only care that the applications they use are supported by the platform.
You talk like someone who's never worked in a real job at any decent company before.
Re:Oh, well (Score:3)
You have a few valid points as some of the GP's examples were a bit out there, and for some of your own points, you would be laughed out of your procurement department. Corporate IT environments care very much about who uses software. I don't know about your IT department, but ours has very strict standards about supportability, health of a company, number of customers and business strength, etc. Those things are key to investing heavily in a software or hardware platform. You don't want to drop millions on a product only to find the company has gone under and won't be supporting your purchase. There comes a point when an OS reaches enough market saturation that it is largely considered a viable alternative that has achieved it's own momentum. Linux simply hasn't gotten to that place yet. Does that make it an invalid choice? Certainly not, BUT it does make many corporate IT shops hesitate to invest heavily in it. We have Linux in our environment. Not a large one, and certainly not widely supported, but it's there.
I don't think the OP was stating it was ineffective or a bad choice, and your defensive post speaks to that, but rather it just hasn't achieved enough market saturation that it is largely considered a viable general use desktop for the masses. No more, no less. That speaks nothing to it's benefits, or it's drawbacks, and you should take such at face value, which is true enough. Linux is more of a specialty desktop. It can do what it does extremely well, but for most purposes, it would require a bit of customization that an OS with better market saturation would probably get out of the box. Not because it can't do those things, but because the vendors who create such products probably also took that market saturation into account when designing their products.
Re:Oh, well (Score:2)
They were invented by engineers.
For engineers. The fact that you're posting on this site means you're not representative of the general population.
Re:Oh, well (Score:3)
A PC with comparable hardware to a console is not that expensive. The problem is, when people say "gaming machine", it's usually a gaming fanatic who wants a 4K display and the graphics horsepower to drive it with all settings maximized. You don't get that with a console, and if you downgrade your components in a PC to a comparable level of performance with a console, you'll find PCs cost about as much as consoles do.
Let's be honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Teenagers and pre-teens rock at getting viruses, malware and such on a Windows computer. This is why everyone buys them tablets.
Windows is starting to be its own worst enemy, Windows 8 is terrible (and I have it on 2 machines) and Windows 7 --- while almost perfect --- at the hands of an inexperienced user the default settings aren't the best.
Typical users ARE NOT looking to tweak, break-in a system, uninstall crapware.
This is where the Steam Machines can excel --- bringing PC quality gaming to the masses without Windows update installing countless GB of mostly unwanted stuff at 3 AM. And Mac computers, while great, are not mainstream economical (I have 2 Macs and I love them. But they are pricey).
Consoles are a trade-off --- they offer gaming with training wheels (no mouse, can't offer bleeding edge graphics, overly sandboxed and limited from a developer perspective at times I would guess) --- SteamOS can offer PC quality gaming without the drawbacks of Windows maintenance/OEM crapwares.
Re:Let's be honest (Score:2)
Realistically, if an OS isn't used by many people, there's little reason to write malware for it.
(That being said, if Steam OS makes desktop linux big, then there will be more malware for desktop linux.)
Re:Let's be honest (Score:2, Flamebait)
Window 8 is malware.
Re:Let's be honest (Score:2)
Realistically, if an OS isn't used by many people, there's little reason to write malware for it.
And if an OS isn't used by many people because it's so hard to administer that only techies can use it, there's zero reason to write malware for it. Who wants to write malware for techies when you can shoot fish in a general-population barrel?
(That being said, if Steam OS makes desktop linux big, then there will be more malware for desktop linux.)
If I may paraphrase Norma Desmond [imdb.com]:
Linux is big. It's the users that got small.
I was mistaken (Score:3, Informative)
I have always believed that Linux deserves to be a gaming platform. I use my machine for games. They are fun, exciting, and most are open source. I've never had to go online to sign up for an account to play any of them. I don't need to maintain an online presence so as to provide someone with information about my behavior. Games I play are available without having to buy a box specifically designed to satisfy the DRM needs of the games I am playing. If games on Linux comes at the loss of those benefits, or the Linux desktop is replaced by some java user interface that pushes the user towards signing up for things, I'm not seeing the benefit.
Close Steam, open GNOME, install game (Score:3)
Games I play are available without having to buy a box specifically designed to satisfy the DRM needs of the games I am playing. If games on Linux comes at the loss of those benefits, or the Linux desktop is replaced by some java user interface that pushes the user towards signing up for things, I'm not seeing the benefit.
This article [slashdot.org] states that SteamOS users can close the Steam client and bring up a GNOME desktop. At that point, the user can install any game made for Debian.
Re:Close Steam, open GNOME, install game (Score:2)
Re:Close Steam, open GNOME, install game (Score:3)
not a single legitimate use of a ROM copier exists.
At least in Slashdot's home country, your claim is at odds with 17 USC 117(a)(1), which states that making a copy or adaptation of a computer program for use on a particular machine is not copyright infringement.
PCs Don't Have Decades for Games (Score:2)
Isn't the desktop PC market actually declining?
The reality is that most people never needed a desktop PC and can get by without one just fine.
Home PCs are now only for old people who are used to that sort of thing.
The desktop workstation wil become a specialty item used for science,
and engineering. The rest of the population will be using thin clients on
remote apps, or smaller, more ergonomically suitable, portable devices.
It's difficult to believe that desktoip PC gaming actually has 'decades' to survive.
I'm questiong the business plan here....
Re:PCs Don't Have Decades for Games (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. Hardware sales are projected to decline very slightly over a couple of years and then start to return. For a market that is constantly under the claim of "dying", they sure are selling an awful lot of $1,000 video cards and $300 CPUs and $300 chassis' and making whole businesses out of catering to even more niche markets like water cooling nuts.
Steam has 65,000,000 users. That is more than XBOX (but less than Playstation). That's not PC gamers. That's just *Steam* gamers.
Consoles are $300-$500. The lowest end gaming PC that you can get by with starts at that price. Further, games have largely been targeted at consoles and ported to PCs in such a way that they just don't really demand much of the PC hardware.
In other words, PC gaming is as big as it has ever been. Even if mobile and console platforms grow massively, that doesn't detract from PC gaming. You can do more than one platform. It's just that software necessitates the increase in hardware capacity and software just hasn't been making those demands for a long time, leaving PC gamers to make longer use of their PC hardware. That reflects in hardware sales. A reduction in hardware sales means just that - a reduction in hardware sales; not a reduction in people playing on their existing hardware.
Additionally, we've been told for years now that *console* gaming is dying and will soon be dead. And so will all handhelds that aren't a tablet or mobile phone. Of course, that is bullshit. Steam's user numbers, the popularity of PC-only games, and the 8,000,000 PS4 and XB1 consoles sold in the last two months is evidence that it is bullshit.
I am skeptical about the future of PC gaming, but not because of some perceived lack of interested gamers. The only thing that can harm PC gaming is if developers and publishers continue to treat PC gaming like a redheaded stepchild. If they continue to put out PC ports in a half-assed and often-broken fashion and months or years after the console versions of the same game. And if they continue to not exploit the power of the PC, but just port over console versions of games that look and play progressively worse over time as the console platform ages.
If PC gaming dies, it won't be for lack of interest. It'll be because it was sabotaged and undermined by the developers and publishers.
Re:PCs Don't Have Decades for Games (Score:2)
Interesting.
But aren't they selling an aweful lot of video cards pretty much for bitcoin mining and not gaming?
Bitcoin is about to go flop because the designer of it percieved that the computing world
would stay static, which it logically couldn't. The perception that desktop computers will
always be PC boxes, required by the world, is pretty much the same kind of situational bias.
I am guessing the 65 million number for Steam are a count of people who have logged on to try it
out of curiosity. The daily user numbers indicate actual customers and that count is orders of magnitude smaller.
I am skeptical that the desktop PC market is sustainable for more than 5 more years. Most of the common things
people have historically done with PCs can now be carried around in ones pocket with the cellphone. That leaves
the home gaming, desktop PC, to become a single use device in most households.
Why would anyone bother with that kind of cash outlay for something that sits idle 90% of the time? Nostalgia?
I'm guessing that the consoles will become less expensive as competing Indian and Chinese technologies arrive
on the market. I can't actually believe that Japan and USA will have any corner on the electronics design market
in a short period of time. The US is not training enough new people, has a miniscule proportion of the global population
to draw ideas from and has lost the ability to do anything other than rewrap old tech (ie: the xbox is really just a crippled PC),
and Japan has social demographic issues that will create a shrinking pool of technically skilled people capable of making new
product (hence the new 'Walkman'). An indication of this is that Sony would rather serve games to a gaming thin client.
The Playstation4 is probably the last of that series of devices from Sony.
We also need to remember that handheld devices will keep improving. Nvidia know this, that is why they are now targeting
graphics device designs, specifically to support that platform.
All things told, as nostalgic as I am for the 1970's and 1980's computer era, the desktop PC is so over it's not even funny.
No amount of wishing will make the PC come back because the public now know what the PC will (and will not) do
and are moving on to more generally useful tools.
Re:PCs Don't Have Decades for Games (Score:2)
Re:PCs Don't Have Decades for Games (Score:2)
The desktop PC market is *not* declining. Shipments of new PCs are declining because the PC market is stable.
Re:PCs Don't Have Decades for Games (Score:2)
"poor software support" (Score:3)
I wonder if when the first Nintendo Wii was released people accused it of having "poor software support". They only had a small fraction of the number of games that are available already for SteamOS.
Funny what a little money spent on marketing can do. Even "independent" voices in the media will treat you differently if they see you throwing money around.
The Wii got a nice tongue bath from the media whereas Steam boxes get a lot of "where are the games?"
It's a good thing that we don't put the popular media in charge of anything. First, because they're barely even able to perform the one task they are charged with, but also because they are so easy to con.
The real next generation (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about up the next generation of game developers - kids growing up right now. If they're gaming on a console and using a tablet or smart phone for their other computing need, they have no real exposure to programming, 3D modeling, audio software or any of the other things that go in to designing games. If Windows and MacOS are moving towards closed software ecosystems and a mobile interface type of simplified UI that hides everything but Twitter and a browser from the user as they both seem to be, Linux is going to have to play a larger part in gaming development in the future. The more devices and distributions tailored for different purposes and specific hardware while still allowing users to peel back the curtains to access everything available on the OS, the better off we'll all be. Kids are curious and will do what they've always done since the advent of personal computing; making cool stuff for fun and to impress people, and unless some change like this takes place, fewer and fewer people will ever be exposed to these tools.
I know my nephew got his parents to buy an iPad just so he could play Minecraft. While the mobile versions of Minecraft make it hard (impossible?) to use addons and mods, I'm sure more than a few kids have been pushed in to building a PC or getting a gaming laptop to really take advantage of what that game has to offer. It'll just take one killer app that allows people to be creative and do things on a Steambox(/Windows/MacOS/Linux) that can't be done on a closed platform to start moving these things.
And in the meantime, Valve will be taking things slow and steady like they always have and building partnerships with hardware and software developers to get SteamOS ready to take over when the inevitable decline of support from MS and Apple for desktop users pushes the hardcore audience over where the games will necessarily follow. Totally agree with the article's author, Valve isn't trying to win a war but positioning itself for a future that's seeming pretty likely if not certain. The Steam machines that are launching now are a low risk investment from everyone involved. Free advertising for Valve, and a simple rebranding of exisiting hardware for the manufacturers. The real test will be how seamlessly and well the streaming works to entice hardcore gamers into putting a HTPC or steam box in their living room, and so far we haven't seen anything there.
A simpler theory (Score:2)
To Valve, though, it's a first step in levering development, publishing, gameplay and community away from their reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term.
Silly me. I thought it was all about popularizing Steam by reducing the build cost for gamers who want to play Steam games on high-end PCs, by taking out the cost of Windows. It may also have something to do with Valve having more control over their platform and/or building an empire.
Saving the PC platform? (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, valve is instead trying to create a new version of "pc gaming", in the shape of an open home console(as opposed to the sony/nintendo model closed model) while also trying to expand in the next hot market: smart TVs/living rooms. Having it's own software and hardware platform where your service is the default is also a great way to reduce the visibility of rival game appstores like GOG, Origin and non steam popular games(Minecraft, LoL, Blizzard games).
Not only that but Valve is trying to save something, this something is itself. The business may look great nowadays, but it's foolish to think they're invincible. Windows and Mac are becoming walled gardens, not very friendly towards apps outside the official app stores. Windows PC sales are in record decline. 65 million steam accounts may look impressive at first glance but considering that steam is a FREE service and that even the PS3, the overpriced console that sold the least the last generation, still managed to grab 80 million users(let alone way over a hundred million PSN accounts), it's clear that Valve doesn't have as close as many users as it could. If Valve lose it's momentum, they could easily become irrelevant.
On the other hand as long as Actvision/Blizzard, Minecraft, EA and LoL (and in Japan, porn VNs) exist, Windows PC gaming will exist. Contrary to popular internet forum belief, Windows PC gaming is much more than Steam. I personally believe that, if wasn't for the crazy seasonal sales and mandatory steamworks in some games(Civ5 in my case), many people(including myself) wouldn't even bother with the service.
Re:Saving the PC platform? (Score:3)
Everything capable of computing and is owned by a person is a PC: macs are PCs, the PS4 is a PC, smartphones and tablets are PCs, even my brand new Panasonic smart rice cooker is a PC. What people call "pc gaming" is nothing more than windows gaming. Windows games only work on windows/x86 machines(at least out of the box). Steam Machines are not an example of Valve trying to save windows gaming.
Sorry but I could not disagree more. The distinction of the Personal Computer was a general purpose device to be used by the owner for a variety of tasks. I would not call any device with a limiting feature set a Personal Computer. Yes on the smartphone / tablet, yes on the Macs, of course yes on the PC, but the PS4 and your smart rice cooker is NOT a PC. Just because something has the ability to compute does not make it a PC.
Unless of course you can run spreadsheet tasks, check your email etc on your rice cooker in which case I take it back.
Re:Saving the PC platform? (Score:2)
even my brand new Panasonic smart rice cooker is a PC
Interesting! What kind of PC? Do you know which OS it runs?
Re:Saving the PC platform? (Score:3)
What people call "pc gaming" is nothing more than windows gaming.
I disagree. Your definition of PC is obviously too broad. A PC is a desktop or laptop computer running a multi-purpose OS. The new kids of the block, tablets and smart-phones, don't really qualify as PCs because of the poor software selection and bad input device (touch-screen). You can make the case of tablets and phones, but it doesn't change my real point: that a toaster or a PS4 is not a PC. One is a cooking device and the other is a locked-down games console. PC gaming does not mean "windows gaming." You can PC game on Linux, Mac and Windows box. If I run Doom 3 on a Windows box I'm PC gaming and I'm still PC gaming if I fire it up under Linux. I agree, however, that with the addition of a Steam box the distinction between a PC and console becomes blurred.
Looking at the history of consoles. (Score:2)
If you look at the history of gaming consoles a lot of them has come and gone. The PC has been around longer and is evolutionary, gaming consoles are just dropped and not evolved.
Overall this means that a gaming platform for PC can evolve instead of requiring a completely new re-design with new developers each time a new gaming platform is released. It also means that if the gaming platform is done right and is backward compatible it should be able to run older games as well as the latest.
Valve is with Steam trying to do the same thing as IBM did when releasing the PC. It may not be the best platform (the PC was in reality pretty crappy when it was released) but it will be widespread.
How pathetic is it... (Score:2)
... that a game company has to protect the PC from Microsoft.
I really hope the new CEO at MS is less of an asshat.
Valve ? (Score:2)
Valve has gone from simply evangelizing the PC platform [...] to actively protecting it
What a load of paid-for bullshill. Valve has famously horrible customer-service [bbb.org] and that flies right in the face of that claim.
Want to help the PC platform? Make fewer people sorry they spent money on your shit,
Slighty OT, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:a atom bomb (Score:5, Funny)
It also sucks at running your spell checker.
Re:a atom bomb (Score:5, Funny)
Running a spell checker on Mr. Tard School's posts is like sticking a band aid on Marie Antoinette.
Re:a atom bomb (Score:2)
Sorry, what atom cpu is being used in gaming for these boxes? Ah that's right, none. [slashdot.org]
Re:a atom bomb (Score:2)
Odd. /. at a url to bluesnews. Let's try that again. [bluesnews.com]
Re:a atom bomb (Score:2)
it's a joke
Might make sense if there was a joke in it, but as it stands it might be closer to trolling.
Re:Maybe just maybe... (Score:2)
Because we're mostly in the US, where we've been forced to spend our childhood years learning the writewashed details of every past war and conflict, but very little other history, and therefore demand that every competition have exactly one clear victor because that's what we're used to?
Re:consoles are going to kill PCs this round (Score:2)
8GB is hardly a large amount of RAM. That's pretty much the minimum for a decent gaming PC these days.
And, since the new generation of consoles are basically just low-end gaming PCs, they're hardly likely to 'kill PCs'.
Re:consoles are going to kill PCs this round (Score:2)
Re:consoles are going to kill PCs this round (Score:2)
Re:consoles are going to kill PCs this round (Score:2)
For most people, it won't matter. Graphics and resolution doesn't make a bad game better (ie: Duke4ever). Besides, a TV (where the Steambox is going to be hooked up) only has a resolution of 1920*1080. My old Core2Duo has absolutely no problems pushing pixels at that res on a Radeon 6770. I admit the CPU is being clocked at 3.8, but it's probably on par with a 3.0 i3.
I still game on my PS2, my NES, even my C64. If the game is fun, it will still be fun at 320*200. (besides, older games tend to take longer to finish, giving me more fun for my money)
Re:consoles are going to kill PCs this round (Score:2)