[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

"Steam/Valve Certified"

It would be cool to see Valve get behind backing a specific Linux build that Steam and their games could be tailored to run on if they were willing to go fully OpenGL. I would still treat the "Valve Box" as a normal computer, but if games were purely direct download only off of Steam, the system could give warnings or info on how specific games run on the specific hardware for particular "Valve Box" system. Valve would really have to go through alot of trouble to pry MS into making a very stripped down version of Windows for a competitor, though I see such a system as doing well for system builders who really want a very basic Win7 OS that really cuts out all the crap.

Though really they wouldn't have to do any of that. All they need to be is a regular PC or whatever. The only difference is that Steam would be pre-installed and the level of steam performance would be advertised. Theres no need to actually mess with the software or Windows itself. All it would be is a regular Windows computer or laptop with steam performance levels.

[Rangers]

I've always thought of an Activision box, not a Steam box.

Between COD and WOW, Activision controls, I dont know but, really really really huge amounts of online gameplay across both consoles and PC.

If they built a box with those two as exclusives, it would instantly be a huge hitter.

Not that it really makes sense anyway, though.

[Mobius1aic]

Considering Activision has titles on Steam, I would think Valve is very qualified.

[MfA]

Activision has to stay friendly with Microsoft ... so it would never push the PC like that.

Microsoft already hates Valve.

[Scott_Arm]

It would be very interesting if Valve decided to come out with a "console" of sorts. I really doubt it would happen. More than likely I'd see them partner with Sony next gen to partner in delivering the online service. Not sure if Sony would want to give away some of their control of the ecosystem.

[Shifty Geezer]

What if Sony decide the competition is too tough, they could decide to snuggle up to Valve and Google and provide an Android enable, Valve network platform offering the best of all worlds. They'd lose money to licensing deals and partnerships, but if it meant securing next generation in a big way, and the majority of media and games sales as a result, it could result in a net win. I do think the Google brand would bolster any console.

[Scott_Arm]

Agreed. I think using Steam as the online service would be a great thing for Sony. I'm just not sure either one would want to split the profits on content. I'm also not sure either company would want the other meddling in their corporate vision and all that jazz. I doubt Sony would want their customers identifying PS4 with Valve as much as they do Sony. Would Valve want to play second fiddle?

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

Considering Activision has titles on Steam, I would think Valve is very qualified.

Valve may be qualified, but they dont have close to the clout or popularity Activision does with just those two franchises.

[Mobius1aic]

Originally Posted by Rangers

Valve may be qualified, but they dont have close to the clout or popularity Activision does with just those two franchises.

I should've further said that Steam pretty much created the digitial download market when it came to PC gaming, and I'm sure Steam heavily influenced MS and Sony in how they would implement Live and PSN this generation. I don't know what Blizzard's system in place is like at all, so I can't make comparisons. PC gamers know Steam, they pretty much breath Steam already.

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

It would be very interesting if Valve decided to come out with a "console" of sorts. I really doubt it would happen. More than likely I'd see them partner with Sony next gen to partner in delivering the online service. Not sure if Sony would want to give away some of their control of the ecosystem.

It would be just as bad a move to partner with them as it was to partner with Apple. Neither of them is interested in a long term partnership. Their strength is PC gaming ... if they let it die they die with it.

Diversifying into fundamentally closed systems where their foothold is at the mercy of others and actually competing with their bread and butter platform is just weak at the moment, when the PC as a gaming platform is actually losing market share. It's an advanced admittance of failure, whereas following my suggestion would be a challenge to the status quo which actually presents a path to continued growth. If the PC was a stable platform they could afford to throw some bones to competing platforms, but it isn't.

[Mobius1aic]

I was looking at computers today at Fry's and Best Buy and couldn't help but think that a very large computer company like HP would make a good partner for Valve. HP could sell some more graphics cards, Valve could get some more face time in stores themselves. Even the slimline HPs (assuming they have powerful enough PSUs) could make very good, non-monstrous gaming and media machines for those who really don't understand how to build gaming computers. You can get them with an Athlon II x4, 4 GB DDR3, 500 GB+ HDD, even B/G/N Wifi for $550. HP could probably get special bulk pricing on higher end low profile video cards if Valve is involved. $650 for the previously stated specs with a Palit low profile GTS 450 included would be a pretty good deal. Just plug it into an HDTV. Steam is pre-installed and can have a little Valve + Steam sticker on the case. Customers may ask what Valve/Steam is, rep can tell them. If he isn't a complete idiot he can let them know that the graphics in the machine are beneficial for more than games. Problem is they hardly understand in the first place

All this talk though makes me want to buy one of those slimcase HPs or Acers, plug in a decent low profile graphics card, and paint the damn thing orange. Honestly I just want one of those pretty cases, and just put in whatever I want from there, but most slim mATX cases are pretty ugly and bigger.

[eastmen]

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

I was looking at computers today at Fry's and Best Buy and couldn't help but think that a very large computer company like HP would make a good partner for Valve. HP could sell some more graphics cards, Valve could get some more face time in stores themselves. Even the slimline HPs (assuming they have powerful enough PSUs) could make very good, non-monstrous gaming and media machines for those who really don't understand how to build gaming computers. You can get them with an Athlon II x4, 4 GB DDR3, 500 GB+ HDD, even B/G/N Wifi for $550. HP could probably get special bulk pricing on higher end low profile video cards if Valve is involved. $650 for the previously stated specs with a Palit low profile GTS 450 included would be a pretty good deal. Just plug it into an HDTV. Steam is pre-installed and can have a little Valve + Steam sticker on the case. Customers may ask what Valve/Steam is, rep can tell them. If he isn't a complete idiot he can let them know that the graphics in the machine are beneficial for more than games. Problem is they hardly understand in the first place

All this talk though makes me want to buy one of those slimcase HPs or Acers, plug in a decent low profile graphics card, and paint the damn thing orange. Honestly I just want one of those pretty cases, and just put in whatever I want from there, but most slim mATX cases are pretty ugly and bigger.

This is silly considering whats coming in the next few months.

Bobcat is very capable and AMD is aiming at the $300-$500 laptop market.

4cpu 1 gpu core bobcat
4gigs of ddr 3 1600
500gig hardrive
wireless n
wireless keyboard and mouse.

The thing could be made for $300 or so . We know a 2/1 bobcat consumes 18w so you can get away with a case between a wii and a xbox 360 s .

Bobcat should be more than enough to run wow and it seems to run other modern games decently. It seems like from reviews cpu power is whats holding it back which is why i recommend a 4cpu core verison of the chip.


They could even go with a desktop fusion part. Phenom II 6 core with a 5350 class gpu in a single die at 32nm would most likely make a good performance part. Would run any modern game well. Most likely get better than 360 looking graphics at 720p on a hd tv. Same as above but with the phenom fusion chip would still run under $500 bucks.

Valve has good developer relations so they could get them to tweak the game for the hardware included . Heck you dangle that carrot in front of AMD and i'm sure they would cut a really good deal on the cpu/gpu just to have developers tweaking for thier gpu and cpu

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by MfA

Activision has to stay friendly with Microsoft ... so it would never push the PC like that.

Well, they don't seem to be happy how MS is banking Live subscriptions with Call of Duty.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010...end-of-the-pc/
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/act...82447d3b3.html

"We've heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft's] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty," says Mr Kotick. "We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network."

Warcraft, which is played on PC rather than PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 consoles, charges a subscription and is backed by a vast technical and customer-support infrastructure, which could easily be redirected to the Call of Duty world.

Mr Kotick sees an opportunity to break the consoles' "walled gardens with new gamer-friendly PCs, designed to be plugged into the television. PCs have long been used for online play, but PC gaming remains niche when the games industry needs to widen its appeal.

"We have always been platform agnostic," says Mr Kotick. "[Consoles] do a very good job of supporting the gamer. If we are going to broaden our audiences, we are going to need to have other devices."

Activision will "very aggressively" support efforts by Dell and HP to connect PCs to TVs.

[Shifty Geezer]

They don't get any money from the broadband fees to go online either. How's about 'adding value' to our internet connections by taking a slice of all connectivity? :rolleyes:

But that's not the point. He's actually suggesting a PC console. Are Activision seriously considering this? If they cahoot with others like Valve...well, it'd all come down to MS then. And then the shoe will be on the other foot:

"We've heard that 100 per cent of [Activisions'] subscribers paying Activision's monthly network fees are using Windows to power their network gaming. We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on ActivisionNet, but it's not our network."

[MfA]

Oh god damnit, now I have to agree with Bobby fucking Kotic

I don't think Dell or HP are visionary enough to solve the problem like it has to be solved though, especially since to do it right will take some money and maintenance costs. The main advantages of the consoles over the PC other than cost are administration and containment. The console user has to do little of the former and anything he installs won't generally fuck up the machine as a whole.

I think it's possible to create a PC which works like that too, but it will take more than asking HP and Dell nicely ... it will take initiative and some money from the main beneficiaries (Valve and/or Activision).

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

But that's not the point. He's actually suggesting a PC console. Are Activision seriously considering this? If they cahoot with others like Valve...well, it'd all come down to MS then.

As much as XBOX division likes to see PC gaming die, they don't have the clout to impact windows prices ... as long as boxes are shipping with windows at Microsoft tax prices Valve and Activision will be able to get windows at Microsoft tax prices for a PC "console".

It's out of the hands of Microsoft, best they could do would be bribing them or trying to (illegally) blackmail them into not doing it. In the end though I'd think Microsoft would be mad to fight this, PC gaming is probably Microsoft's best weapon vs. Apple in the battle for end users.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by MfA

It's out of the hands of Microsoft, best they could do would be bribing them or trying to (illegally) blackmail them into not doing it. In the end though I'd think Microsoft would be mad to fight this, PC gaming is probably Microsoft's best weapon vs. Apple in the battle for end users.

CTO of HP's gaming division and the founder of Vooodo PC, Rahul Sood's thoughts about this:
Microsoft Windows may become Irrelevant Without Gaming

If gaming were to continue on the path to which it's currently on the content will become less important, the quality of the games will drop, and games will be consumed like bubblegum or candy bars. Granted there are a few exceptions, but for the most part you buy it, you play it for a couple of days, and you wait for the next one.

... on the other hand if all Microsoft produces with Age of Empires Online and Microsoft Flight are stripped down browser based versions of their previously earth shattering titles then we have a problem that probably won't be fixed by Microsoft.

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

All this talk though makes me want to buy one of those slimcase HPs or Acers, plug in a decent low profile graphics card, and paint the damn thing orange.

And call it... The Orange Box.

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

Honestly I just want one of those pretty cases, and just put in whatever I want from there, but most slim mATX cases are pretty ugly and bigger.

There are some nice ones from Lian-Li and Antec:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/Antec-NSK1480
http://www.antec.com/Believe_it/product.php?id=NzE3

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by MfA

I don't think Dell or HP are visionary enough to solve the problem like it has to be solved though, especially since to do it right will take some money and maintenance costs. The main advantages of the consoles over the PC other than cost are administration and containment. The console user has to do little of the former and anything he installs won't generally fuck up the machine as a whole.

I think it's possible to create a PC which works like that too, but it will take more than asking HP and Dell nicely ... it will take initiative and some money from the main beneficiaries (Valve and/or Activision).

Ironically this is what DirectX was supposed to address, and where MS were looking to provide a DirectX rating so you could very simply match up hardware to software. Trouble is, hardware is too complex and Windows just isn't good enough at solving hardware compatibilitiy issues. Without standardised hardware, there are faults typical consumers can't work with. Hell, even fixed hardware like consoles can introduce compatibility issues across SKUs!

I think they'd need a fixed hardware configuration, not user-upgradeable. This GPU with this mobo and that processor at this clockspeed etc. The moment users starting changing things, support becomes a nightmare, and you get those conditions that always kept me from PC gaming, those bugs the devs can't trace that leave angry forum posters complaining how crap the game is because it doesn't work on their system, to which the devs can't reply because there's nothing they can do.

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

There are some nice ones from Lian-Li and Antec:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/Antec-NSK1480
http://www.antec.com/Believe_it/product.php?id=NzE3

Whatever happened to the BTX standard? That'd ahve been a good framework for a slimline PC console.

[AzBat]

Evidently with the Xbox Live $10 price hike to $60 a year, Activision has "snagged a "modest amount" of that $5". So in a way, Activision are responsible for the price hike. Kinda scary if you think about it. Let one foot in the door, what else can happen?

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/12/bo...-treyarch-inf/
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=413950

Tommy McClain

[Silenti]

I'm too tired and scattered brained to properly parse that statement by Kotick in the article. Is he really stating Activision is getting 5$ from MS? It is really unclear to me. Activision may be sitting on top of the world with Modern Warfare at the moment, but what happens when COD dies, as it inevitably will. Next year or 10 years from now. This would really annoy me if MS upped the price in large part to pay Activision and I wasn't a Call of Duty player. ( I have neither at the moment and don't expect that to change for the moment.)

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Silenti

I'm too tired and scattered brained to properly parse that statement by Kotick in the article. Is he really stating Activision is getting 5$ from MS? It is really unclear to me.

No, the sum is not specified. The 5$ figure was just the amount of money MS gets per month from Live 60$/12months, Kotick says Activision get's a small amount out of that. Don't know how close to 5$ per year that is though...

[Mobius1aic]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

And call it... The Orange Box.

I was seriously thinking that as well, but it was too easy and convenient to suggest the idea

Besides, orange is a pretty tacky color for a production/retail item though. But it would be interesting to market an "Orange Box" console as coming with a pre-installed copy of The Orange Box, which would be a pretty good idea unto itself. Valve already banked with the title and giving away free digital copies would be tempting for consumers. Hell I'd throw in Counter-Strike Source too.

As interesting as the 4 Core Bobcat idea is, I see nothing but problems arising from the chip being too low in graphics horsepower and APU - RAM bandwidth not meeting the demand. If it was a 4 core Bobcat + dedicated GPU, I would be much more interested. As for the arguments about using Windows in such a machine (assuming it's still a generally open ended PC machine), I could see MS getting on board with providing a stripped down version of Windows, if MS really feels that their OS is in peril (and arguably it is with Apple, Linux on their ass). In the end I cannot seriously see a Valve Box running only Source powered games from Valve hence why I wouldn't want an APU-only system unless we're talking 4 CPU cores, 400+ SPs and 40+ GB/s of bandwidth. It needs to decently handle a large part of the Steam catalog as well as whatever Valve might be planning as a successor to Source. I'd still expect it to be a fully functional computer (regardless of OS structure), with the proper interfaces and programs for idiots to have their hand held but provision for power users to get their groove on if they so desire.

I'm also surprised Valve hasn't tried to break into the Facebook gaming market by providing browser playable forms of Counter Strike Source that can interface and play with "normal" servers. Facebook gamers could easily access the game by starting their browser, logging in to Facebook as opposed to doing the "complicated" bit of hitting an exe on their desktop

As for MS-Activision royalties thing, I guess it would be possible for MS to analyze Call of Duty related server activity and pay Activision according to the activity, assuming Activision even had access to the info to leverage MS into paying them?

[Alkohallick]

Now I know this isnt a "tech" post but I wasn't really sure where to put this, feel free to move to appropriate location if need-be

Now reading this...When quizzed about the project by Destructoid ahead of last weekend’s Spike Video Game Awards, Frank Pearce, Blizzard’s senior vice president, confirmed it was happening.

“The media is not supposed to know anything about that,” he said. “It’s our next-gen MMO project."...........According to the leaked release schedule Titan is slated for release in the fourth quarter of 2013......http://www.next-gen.biz/news/blizzar...-its-next-mmog

So can we expect "next-gen" to be sometime in late 2013, early 2014?

[JPT]

Originally Posted by Alkohallick

“The media is not supposed to know anything about that,” he said. “It’s our next-gen MMO project."...........According to the leaked release schedule Titan is slated for release in the fourth quarter of 2013......http://www.next-gen.biz/news/blizzar...-its-next-mmog

So can we expect "next-gen" to be sometime in late 2013, early 2014?

Or just the next-gen of MMO?

[MfA]

Unless the next generation console has a keyboard and mouse what does Blizzard's next MMO have to do with it? Why would a market which has failed time and time again be an attractive option for the company with the single most profitable computer game in history in a different market?

Consoles are actually moving farther away from what a successful MMO needs with further simplification of controls ...