Why? Hardware is easy, they could pay a company like Asus to make it for them as subcontractor and I'd be surprised if it costs them a whole lot.
The rest is just software ... locking down windows, hiding/sandboxing intallers, auto-updating, making an integrity preserving bootloader (at some point a game is going to fuck up and write in places it shouldn't be writing, cleaning this up should be quick and easy). Lets say it's a couple man-years of work, couple million at most.
It's not peanuts, it's not a huge investment either.
Yep. If the consoles end up being APUs, stick the same thing in the Steambox and you're comparable. Games won't be so low-level, but Valve can release updated hardware every year or two offering an upgrade path and competitiveness, eventually outperforming the rivals in the fourth year maybe. Just like the Android space.
Steambox is conceptually no different than Mac computers.
(Valve may release an custom version of Linux with the box.)
If it looks nice, it works flawlessly and it has lots of games, I don't see why people wouldn't be interested.
(Sure price is also a factor.)
(Valve may release an custom version of Linux with the box.)
If it looks nice, it works flawlessly and it has lots of games, I don't see why people wouldn't be interested.
(Sure price is also a factor.)
upnorthsox
Veteran
How many games support linux? I thought that platform was all but dead to gaming.
I've just entered the beta testing for Steam which is going to open up the platform to a huge number of games. With linux it isn't usually a question of which games support it but rather which games does linux support itself. Most are playable through Wine and various support platforms and using an i5 with Nvidia Optimus (supported through Bumblebee) I get some superb results with games.
Getting a sub contractor to make you millions of systems is going to cost billions of dollars. Yes? They will need a financial commitment probably in the hundreds of millions to allocate facilities and ramp up of production. Or is Asus going to pay for all of this somehow?
If they want to get physical hardware in Walmart or best buy and actually compete with consoles it would cost. You need significant units for launch, and if walmart can't sell them you're on the hook for the cost.
That completely depends on how many you want to hold in channel, if you want to stockpile millions of units ala THQ did with the uDraw then sure you have to invest a lot up front ... if you launch with small inventories (and thus run the risk of not being able to meet early demand) then you don't.
Hah, no ... if PC manufacturers had to spend 100s of millions for every compact PC they produce they would never produce any. Sure, if you start small you run the risk of missing a couple months of early sales ... but it's risks vs. reward. You wildly overestimate the cost for a small launch.
I just did, Im guessing you didnt
roughly 1800(*) windows game vs 485 mac games. In the top 10 selling windows games, 5 were also available for mac.
True theres not as many on mac as windows, but certainly theres a fair amount.
Mac Steam users are only shown to be around 3% though, which isn't very much. Even Windows 8 users already account for about 4% of Steam users, which makes the Mac numbers seem even more sad considering how new Windows 8 is. Seems to imply that Mac users of Steam are almost negligible, presumably because they stick to Apple's store. I'd have to think that similarly Valve fears Windows users switching more to the Windows store for their entertainment purchases over time, hence why the push to make their own box.
You're making assumptions with that statement and missing a huge point, the most popular Mac is the 13" MacBook Pro, with an integrated GPU that is barely worth playing any of the latest games on. The ONLY Mac with an upgradable GPU is the Mac Pro, starts at $2500, hasn't had an update in 2.5 years, and is so hilariously overpriced compared to what you could get if you were to build your own system that no one even bothers to consider it.
Buying a Mac isn't anywhere near cost-effective for high-end gaming. It has nothing to do with the Mac App Store or Windows Store.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Indeed, and they will need to challenge console in terms of units sold to get any sort of meaningful platform support.
I kinda don't see the point. Devs don't want another platform to target when they're making their games. And many pubs will prob just opt to continue targeting the wide range of PC HW configurations likely to be in people's homes, than the fixed platform steambox, rendering it's defining feature of being a "stable" platform as moot, as pubs may decide not to invest in any platform specific optimisations unless Valve can sell tens of millions of boxes.
Cause they need a large initial install base just like consoles to justify development support ... oh wait, no they don't ...
This will be a Windows box, to think otherwise is naive ... as a Windows box they don't need numbers for adoption, the PC platform exists, will existing during and will exist after it's launch regardless of the numbers it sells. They can afford a slow launch, even if consoles can't.
Billy Idol
Legend
They already have Steam Big Picture...the console UI available. Looks cool and can be switched in an instant to the PC UI...a steam box serving both, console and PC gamers would be neat.
I am happy to buy a steam box if I don't have to deal with all the PC hardware/software stuff! Furthermore, it is kind of frustrating that you invest hundreds of Euros into a supa dupa gaming device knowing that gaming devs will never ever utilize it effectively, because every PC owner has different system specs. So you basically burn money, whereas you know that console hardware will be used efficiently over time (but you burn maybe money for being an early adopter...). A common steambox could also be very attractive to gaming devs and publisher.
I am happy to buy a steam box if I don't have to deal with all the PC hardware/software stuff! Furthermore, it is kind of frustrating that you invest hundreds of Euros into a supa dupa gaming device knowing that gaming devs will never ever utilize it effectively, because every PC owner has different system specs. So you basically burn money, whereas you know that console hardware will be used efficiently over time (but you burn maybe money for being an early adopter...). A common steambox could also be very attractive to gaming devs and publisher.
That's an option they may entertain. The Steambox could be like a Google Nexus in a sea of Android devices - you can buy from lots of options, but the Steambox gives a living-room friendly, console-like interface at better value for money and less hassle than a generic PC. It Valve address some of the issues preventing people from putting a PC in their living-room, they'll provide a competitor to consoles. And it doesn't have to be about 'winning' the console space. I know the typical perception in such conversation is 'if they can't sell tens of millions and challenge for first place, it's not worth it', but Valve aren't dependent on their console, so they can launch a box as a sideline. They can attempt to extend their userbase from the PC gamer to the console gamer. They don't need to rush, don't need massive contracts up front, can adapt to demand, and if it takes off, great, if it doesn't, no harm.
People need to stop thinking of this as a new console. It's more like ASUS or Alienware or whoever announcing a new PC range, and should be viewed more in that context.
