Gabe Newell: Valve will release its own console-like PC

[dagamer]

Even if the box is built and people but the system, you still need developers to make games for it. A port to Linux is a bit harder than a console since there isn't just one set of hardware and some piracy protections. Even the Dreamcast flopped and it sold 10 million units in 2.5 years.

It's not that I want it to fail, but I don't see the advantage over a Windows box which will play almost any PC game ever released, has infinitely upgradable hardware, and Steam already runs on it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The advantage would be the frontend and form factor. A console and a PC are effectively the same devices, differentiated only by software and price. If I could buy a £300 PC in a smallish, quiet box that booted up into an XMB type interface and played games flawlessly, I would probably be doing that. Joe Consumer doesn't care about upgradeable hardware (actually would prefer to avoid it) or full app support on their TV, so they want a machine better designed for the job.

 

[Acert93]

I suspect they will rev it annually or semi-annually, and it will just maintain cost, and there will be some policy about having to run on say the last 2 versions of the hardware.
It's pretty much what Apple does with idevices.

Not sure I'd want to buy a game console every 2 years. Maybe if they did a two-year refresh and asked for "certified" games to run on the two most recent generations, giving you a 4 year life for your console.

Kind of getting way ahead of the real info (almost nothing) at this point though.

I need to go find my post from years ago suggesting a bi-annual PC certification platform where software would have rolling revision support (e.g. 2012 class "high" settings, 2010 class "medium" settings, "2008 class "low" settings; of course non-computing intense software may support EVERY version) because I think for the PC segment a simple rolling system targets could help developers and help consumers hence help the industry. It continues to push the hardware and evolution of the platform, it allows cost cutting (e.g. in 2012 you could have budget 2010 class hardware for the mainstream--of course you would need to call this stuff something else other than year number) anyways I think looking at how the market has gone this is a solid remedy for core gaming.

I hope Valve looks at the idea--because MS ignored it when I suggested it It looks like Valve is serious about eating MS desktop computer gaming pie; or at least what is left of it.

 

[BRiT]

I remember some of those discussions about having basic performance ratings that would be refreshed every two years. It's such a simple concept yet never gained any traction. Quite a shame.

 

[zed]

A port to Linux is a bit harder than a console since there isn't just one set of hardware and some piracy protections. Even the Dreamcast flopped and it sold 10 million units in 2.5 years.

It's not that I want it to fail, but I don't see the advantage over a Windows box which will play almost any PC game ever released, has infinitely upgradable hardware, and Steam already runs on it.

Theres been a few comments like this here, surely the concept of the steambox isnt too hard to understand, perhaps someone can outlay exactly what it is so ppl like the above poster ccan 'understand it' (Im terrible with english)

 

[ERP]

I hope Valve looks at the idea--because MS ignored it when I suggested it It looks like Valve is serious about eating MS desktop computer gaming pie; or at least what is left of it.

It's not MS that's the issue, it's the hardware vendors, they don't like any certification that could be used to drive consumer decisions that limits how much costs can be cut.
It's the same issue with win7 certification when MS started that, they ended up having to make dramatic compromises in the original requirements because of pressure from the OEM's.

I know a few people who worked on open hardware projects at MS and the issue is always the same, they'd make high end looking prototypes, ship them to the OEM's along with minimum specs, and get back cheap looking min spec products. I think it's one of the reasons they wanted to do Surface.

 

[novcze]

You can build a dead sexy HTPC in a small sleek attractive box that can play games right now. There's absolutely no need for anything large or beige. It doesn't even have to be rectangular if they don't want it to be. Until we know the level of performance they are targetting, we won't know what their price target is or what hardware constraints they'll have to work with.

Even going for a large powerful box with say a Core i7 and a GTX 680 or Radeon 7970 could fit into a relatively small and attractive HTPC box. Cooling might be a little loud but it's certainly doable. In fact, I have one that I cart around in a backpack to do LAN gaming at a friend's house.

Speaking of HTPC, I'm surprised that none of major hw.companies e.g. ASUS, isn't making gaming HTPC in form of standard A/V box (435mm width), they do some low power slim desktop for living room, but that's not meant for gaming.

If Valve can deal with software side of things, they can set-up nice bussiness strategy with forward compatibility and say 3 power levels differentiated by price $400, $800, $1200 and release new hw. everytime they can make old $1200 power level available for $800 (or $400 if gap isn't long enough).

I think on the market is room for console with different power levels, some people always want premium, some people prefer low price.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not MS that's the issue, it's the hardware vendors, they don't like any certification that could be used to drive consumer decisions that limits how much costs can be cut.

Yep. You need a hardware partner for getting hardware out there. A spec typically isn't going to fly, especially if you have to be tight on hardware choices to prevent incompatibilities. If all a HW vendor can do to differentiate is change the box, who's going to want to compete in that space?

Speaking of HTPC, I'm surprised that none of major hw.companies e.g. ASUS, isn't making gaming HTPC in form of standard A/V box (435mm width), they do some low power slim desktop for living room, but that's not meant for gaming.

Because they don't trust the average consumer to be PC gaming savvy. That's where a software partner is needed to refine the interface and simplify the systems so a PC can be used like a console. That's where Valve + someone else could prove effective, although we've no idea what frontend and systems Valve have in mind.

 

[novcze]

That's where a software partner is needed to refine the interface and simplify the systems so a PC can be used like a console. That's where Valve + someone else could prove effective, although we've no idea what frontend and systems Valve have in mind.

Yep, my second paragraph somewhat implied that.


Valve needs to do things differently if they want to be successful, they need to share their platform strategy so that consumers will feel save about purchase, key features:
- Valve Box can be used as Windows PC, even if they fail as content provider or publisher, customer can always use Valve Box as ordinary PC.
- forward compatibility, every game you buy will run on new hardware when is released.
- staying in touch with tech., e.g. idea of different power level models and/or release new hw. more often.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yep, my second paragraph somewhat implied that.

Yep. I'm agreeing. I also think this is why i think we haven't seen a console-esque PC before, and why we might see one with Valve pursuing it. I'm reminded of MSX which was popular in Japan and other nations, interestingly a Microsoft concept. It couldn't compete in the west though and fizzled out. Another generic standard for games is an obvious future for CE devices, and one that's been discussed many a time, although the software (OS and systems particularly) will remain a significant issue (eg. Android consoles won't be perfectly compatible, so not much reason to build them). And by the time a standard is sorted, maybe we'll be onto streaming games anyhoo?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yep. You need a hardware partner for getting hardware out there. A spec typically isn't going to fly, especially if you have to be tight on hardware choices to prevent incompatibilities. If all a HW vendor can do to differentiate is change the box, who's going to want to compete in that space?

It's hard but it's not uncommon for hardware certifications, you just have to have enough clout. Intel, for example, has had many hardware certifications and requirements over the years. Most of the OEMs follow it but not always. And most follow it because they know that (1) Intel will advertise the ever living snot out of it (Centrino, for example) and (2) it's an easier sell to large corporations, businesses, and businessmen.

It's not like a gaming oriented certification process is going to make a machine an easier sell to the above. And gaming machines from OEMs are still pretty darn niche. There's small boutique dealers and only 1.5 gaming divisions among the large OEMs (Dell, and to a lesser extent HP). It's not seen as a large or easily cracked market for the OEMs as many PC gamers can build their own machines or know someone who can. And hence knows the price premium that can come with an OEM machine. Warranties and support are nice but aren't that important to enthusiasts or people that know enthusiasts. Hence, pretty much all the OEMs won't be terribly enthused at potentially paying for certification that most likely won't bring in appreciable revenue.

I'm extremely interested to what type of machine Valve decides to go with (hardware and OS) and then to see if they can be successful at it or not.

Regards,
SB

 

[Osamar]

In the software side of the equation I am thinking, How many game engines/middleware are for Linux? I know there are some good "indie level" engines. But for the big ones (if I am not wrong), you have Unity 4, Gamebryo and rumors on Unreal Engine 4 and Cryengine (take these with all the distance you like). And in the case of a game in Unity 4 (for example) it is really so easy to port to Linux or not.

 

[Ethatron]

Unity is on the march - and could become motivated by the Steam-box initiative with it's roots deep in indie territory - it also has the advantage of the web-player component as an intermediate jumppad into yet-unsupported platforms, it's easier to port as it's mostly high-level abstracted API (say webGL) instead of almost-bare-metal OpenGL.

 

[Demirug]

Unity is on the march - and could become motivated by the Steam-box initiative with it's roots deep in indie territory - it also has the advantage of the web-player component as an intermediate jumppad into yet-unsupported platforms, it's easier to port as it's mostly high-level abstracted API (say webGL) instead of almost-bare-metal OpenGL.

I would not call this on the march. They want to add native client support the same way they support Flash (3D). That is the web player feature level withour the need of the unity plugin. That it might run on Linux with this is just a side effect. Beside of this so far we don't know what kind of browser support the SteamBox will provide. Based on what I see Unity is currently much more interested on mobile and it would be very hard for SteamBox to generate a compareable user base.

PS: WebGL is on the same abstarction level as OpenGL. It just replaces some raw memorz pointer stuff as this is not supported in JavaScript.

 

[Lightman]

There also is Unigine for Linux and for sure it is capable on engine side, not sure about tools though.

 

[Ethatron]

I would not call this on the march.

I think they are marching quite good:
http://unity3d.com/unity/multiplatform/desktop

PS: WebGL is on the same abstarction level as OpenGL. It just replaces some raw memorz pointer stuff as this is not supported in JavaScript.

Hard to explain, but programming for webGL and for OpenGL put you into quite different mind-sets. The former keeps you steadily reminded of the browser and compatibility context and makes you program so (compatible, lean and abstract). The latter continously involves you into low-level battles about performance and driver differences, and makes you program so.

 

[Demirug]

I think they are marching quite good:
http://unity3d.com/unity/multiplatform/desktop

Ok i wasn't aware of this. Though that native client was still there "solution" for Linux.

Hard to explain, but programming for webGL and for OpenGL put you into quite different mind-sets. The former keeps you steadily reminded of the browser and compatibility context and makes you program so (compatible, lean and abstract). The latter continously involves you into low-level battles about performance and driver differences, and makes you program so.

I have done both and didn't fell this way. But it might be a personal thing.

 

[Osamar]

I really do not know the level of TORQUE 3D at this moment, but I have found this http://www.indiegogo.com/torque3d-for-linux

 

[Ethatron]

I have done both and didn't fell this way. But it might be a personal thing.

Sure, I believe so.
Unity has a very impressive "we support ..."-list, I guess their "problem" is rather time & resources than difficult to port code, after thinking a bit more about i.

 

[Albofighter]

Didn't see this posted but "A new warrior enters the ring" - Steambox http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46079225&postcount=1

It's supposed to come out this year so that's 3 consoles on the horizon...

Hopefully it adds pressure to Sony and MS to up their specs. This low TF talk is seriously worrying, especially with how easy it is to achieve over 2 TF.

Are they trying to make a profit from the get go? Also I read that HD8xxxM won't be binned. Is that true? and does it imply something for consoles?