Could this be what mark rein is excited about ?
although NVIDIA just unveiled the Tegra Note
although NVIDIA just unveiled the Tegra Note
I think hardware partners could be wiling to give it a try, desktop sales are crumbling, and the cost of windows hurts their margins, and lower the competitiveness/attractiveness of Desktop.
Think of all the illegal windows PC out there where windows is only there for games. Now any guy putting together PC has a proper, legal free OS to install on its costumer PC and it plays games.
I think Nvidia would happily launch its own console when Boulder cores are ready.
I would be surprised if publishers are unwilling to try anything to grow the market and I also think that whereas ports have a cost they may be wiling to somehow become less dependent on either Sony or MSFT. They are the content creators, the more hardware providers there are the greater their negotiating power.
If there's money to be made, yes I think hardware partners would try. However, can they compete with MS and Sony on hardware with commodity PC components stuck together, and the need for the profit margins that MS and Sony can do without?
On the publisher side, is Linux really a 'growth' market? They have Xbox, PS, ios, windows, mac, android, is there really a need for another platform to grow the gaming market? What gamer will the Linux/Steambox market capture that they isn't already covered on the Ven diagram by one of the others I just mentioned?
Could this be what mark rein is excited about ?
although NVIDIA just unveiled the Tegra Note
Oh crap, not another george Foreman grill... 
It doesn't sound like they will produce their own hardware.
This still relegates it to the enthusiasts market, pretty much people who build their gaming PCs.
Instead of MS though, you can load a Linux OS which is supposedly optimized for games.
Yawn.
Small percentage of people build gaming PCs and a smaller percentage install Linux. So that is why consoles games sell in higher volume than PC games.
Games will be limited to shooters, strategy and other PC-centric genres. Don't expect sports games for instance, not even FIFA, which EA still develops for PCs (Windows).
In a first time (/first gen product) I think no, I'm not sure what is their best chance to gain traction (early on):
High end and expensive though not different than windows PC which are set to remoin for a long while both forward and backward compatible
Low end: could be kaveri+4GDDR5 solder to board, an HDD slot, or a matching Nvidia solution if their custom CPU made CPUs is ready sometime in 2014.
I think that there is no middle ground for them. Sony and MSFT are already here. I would favor the low-end approach, making Steam OS based on SOC only. ANd I'm cheap but I believe that the masses are too.
Well it is not Linux it is Steam OS, I expect it not to have the same desktop feel even tough, desktop applications could be ported (/recompiled) easily.
Publishers are tough bet, clearly I can see them wanting to break out of the MSFT/Sony duopoly /grasp.
It could get complicated, AMD and Nvidia have working relation with studio, help with development, take in charge a lot of optimizations, etc. On the other end Nvidia and AMD , Intel are on the wrong side of the stick (AMD got all the deal though) if you look at the profits MSFT and Sony plans to make on consoles or MSFT makes on PC, they may think that they don't get a fair share of the revenue they are generating. Actually the same is true for software, both MSFT and Sony just removed ~60 bucks out of the budget of gamers that play online for them selves, it is hard to argue against that from their pov it is a loss.
In the mean time MSFT is mismanaging Windows, the "free approach" of Google and the festering Android environment may have given a couples execs some ideas.
It is not a given but both hardware vendor and software may have seen there best interest in supporting a free environment, not being locked in a duopoly, etc. They could deem the option worth a try it fails.
I would also bet that some people in the industry might think that this gen went wrong, too much of a jump in tech, too brutal, lots of investments, in the end the generation both MSFT were not aggressive in lowering the price of their systems lowering the extend to which editors could recoup their gains. etc. There are a lot of issues that are not there in an open market, tech evolve smoothly, there is competition on price, it could be blood bath with desktop class ARM processor available to lots of integrators. For the software guys, they benefit form the hardware guys optimizing their software for the sake of selling their hardware.
I see lots of reasons for the hardware and software vendors to "try" something different, it fails it fails. But I've the feeling that whereas the start of that adventure could be sluggish it has a potential to snowball as the tech progress (a bit like Android), I go back to your first point the hardware, by 2015 (could read as: as early as)there could be threatening products shipping.
PS I'm not clear at all this post sucks... should have made a proper "plan" before beginning to type
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, ok, what you mean is Windows as OS for ValveBox, I agree.
And I don't know, but even Windows 8 (the "bad" guy) has more percent of users in Steam than Mac and Linux together.
Oops forgot a couple of things, OpenGL is a great enabler as it is share between the Steam OS, and Android (iOS? I'm definitely not an Apple guy).
I think Google may want to enter the console gaming realm but I wonder if they could be happy with mobile devices (from phone to laptop with Chrome OS) casual gaming and a few core games, instead of possibly finding them selves in MSFT seat and facing suit from the whole world about what could turn into a monopole. It hurted MSFT they made mistakes but there are things (improvements) they could not bring to Windows because of anti trust laws world wide.
I think Google may want to enter the console gaming realm but I wonder if they could be happy with mobile devices (from phone to laptop with Chrome OS) casual gaming and a few core games, instead of possibly finding them selves in MSFT seat and facing suit from the whole world about what could turn into a monopole. It hurted MSFT they made mistakes but there are things (improvements) they could not bring to Windows because of anti trust laws world wide.
Hmm, so Valve asks me to use a "free" OS which means I need to either abandon everything Windows or invest even more of my time and attention to maintain a dual boot PC. In turn I get to play some exclusive games.
Well... will those games be better than what I get with a nextgen console? A system that also has a free OS and requires less of my time and attention to maintain...
Personally, I also keep my Windows PC around for the times I want to create some content, either simple documents or some past-time art practice or such, using apps that aren't available on Linux at this time. Can they offer a replacement?
So I just don't see the point here. And Acti/Bliz staying out of it would be a pretty strong reason too, I mean no Blizzard games on a PC platform?? Who wants that? But how could Valve convince them...
Well... will those games be better than what I get with a nextgen console? A system that also has a free OS and requires less of my time and attention to maintain...
Personally, I also keep my Windows PC around for the times I want to create some content, either simple documents or some past-time art practice or such, using apps that aren't available on Linux at this time. Can they offer a replacement?
So I just don't see the point here. And Acti/Bliz staying out of it would be a pretty strong reason too, I mean no Blizzard games on a PC platform?? Who wants that? But how could Valve convince them...
Stay away from x86 and ARM and go with one of the most sucessful game console CPU arch. of all time.
MIPS CPU (used in Playstation 1 & 2 and Nintendo 64)
PowerVR GPU (used in Dreamcast and Apple iPhone)
Blazkowicz
Legend
No, use a 68k + Z80
Blazkowicz
Legend
Not sure there will be exclusives, If Valve did that they would cut themselves from millions in revenues from Windows gamers. But if they really do that, someone will come up with a compatibility layer so you can run the linux version of Steam on Windows.
The first announcement is up on store.steampowered.com/livingroom
Among the snippets of stuff there is :
So surprise, the steam box is a thin client! What you can run and how is not said though : can you run Photoshop, in a full streamed Windows 7/8 desktop if it be, or only Steam games? Will you have to buy Windows Server if you want to be able to still use the other computer at the same time and will that be supported? What are the requirements?, it could be a nvidia Kepler GPU, it comes with NVENC and is a supported commercial solution for streaming games (with low enough latency we can hope) ; or Windows 8.1 has some streaming built-in (Miracast support) but I don't know about the latency and compatibility with random (old and new) AMD and Intel GPUs, and G80 or Fermi based GPUs for that matter.
I love thin clients/streaming, but we'll have to see what are the answers to these questions and others there can be.
The other relevant parts of the announcement are
and
You're free to build an Atom or 9-watt Kabini living room frontend to a gaming PC
(and run the lightweight indie or old games on it, and the media playback as well as stuff like SNES emulators)The "gaming PC" can even be a Windows 8 VM on servers in the closet or basement (as long as you have IOMMU and VGA-passthrough capable hypervisor, for one or two GPUs) but that will be geeky stuff for tinkerers. Also the better form of "cloud gaming" I can think of : it's better if you can manage the stuff yourself and have it on your own LAN (or if you have fiber at home you can beam it through a VPN or the internet for shit and giggles)
HL3 launches exclusively on SteamOS for 1-3 months or something similar, that is a big incentive for many to try it. And if its very good, people might stick with it.
Also it could just be a play to make sure MS does not lock Windows 8 into a sandboxed app-store approved solution. I mean some engineers is probably a small investment compared to a MS 30% cut ala Apple/Google and the extra PR is not bad.
If it fails and keeps windows "open" then its a win and they can always tell MS that they will dust it off again, if they try something smart
just my .02 cents
Also it could just be a play to make sure MS does not lock Windows 8 into a sandboxed app-store approved solution. I mean some engineers is probably a small investment compared to a MS 30% cut ala Apple/Google and the extra PR is not bad.
If it fails and keeps windows "open" then its a win and they can always tell MS that they will dust it off again, if they try something smart
just my .02 cents
I'm not Valve but I seriously doubt their business model and plans for SteamOS include replacing the desktop. I see this as a livingroom component that either will come in pre-built setups (either from Valve and/or manufacturers who want to build one since it's open) hence the /livingroom in the URL. I don't think anyone is asking you to dual boot or even choose SteamOS over Steam on your Windows platform.
But being able to run Windows games on my TV at the speed of my desktop hardware with very little investment and the ability to choose whatever hardware I want to build it with? Yes please. Hell imagine being able to run it on a Pi?
Ike Turner
Veteran
Where the hell does the notion of Windows 8 being closed come from besides Newell's childish FUD?
Windows 8 is similar to any prior version of Windows and there's nothing closed about it at all in terms of app publishing are any other stuff. It's Windows RT (ARM) that can only run apps published through the app store.
Windows 8 is similar to any prior version of Windows and there's nothing closed about it at all in terms of app publishing are any other stuff. It's Windows RT (ARM) that can only run apps published through the app store.
Blazkowicz
Legend
That 30% cut on the MS app store is insane, it insures there will never be commercial Metro apps and every one is free to ignore it : there are competing stores that precede it (Steam, Origin), software in a box got in real store or through the mail, and even just download setup.exe after maybe paying the authors on their website. Which is not so different from buying shareware in 1992 really.
The MS store's cut ought to be something like 10% or 8% if they want it to work on a frigging unlocked desktop OS with 18 years of backwards compatibility.
The MS store's cut ought to be something like 10% or 8% if they want it to work on a frigging unlocked desktop OS with 18 years of backwards compatibility.
It's as insane as Apple.
Similar threads
