Steam-powered console set to annoy gamers worldwide

The internet chronicles the hatred so many gamers feel towards Valve's Steam platform.Despite this, the company has decided to release a Steam-powered console in 2013.Will it be well-received? I think not.

The story is too old to be commented.
DesVader1955d ago

When I saw that Steam launched that Big Picture, I knew the console was going to become a reality. I know there are problems with Steam and some annoying things that make me rage. However, I still think that the Steam-powered console is going to be good for the gaming industry, opening the PC-gaming experience up to a wider audience, cutting market segment now owned by the "traditional" video game consoles.

PandaMcBearface1955d ago

I like that it will "level the playing field" as it were, but at the same time if Steam runs the same way that it does now I think many people will be enraged and Valve will lose a lot of business.

NewMonday1955d ago

one good thing could be that game controller settings will be more standard and better calibrated for PC games.

ardivt1955d ago


Yeah Even if The Hardware sucks, maybe we finally get a decent USB controller for pc. I hate to have to buy expensive 360 Controllers :)

darthv721955d ago

such as will it be a digital system only. Making it the same as an onlive type of box but obviously using steam instead of onlive?

Will it allow for all types of pc games or just strictly the content available through steam? That could hurt things if it is locked out of content provided by EA or other companies who dont offer their product on steam.

Hardware...will it be outdated within a year because pc development would continue while units are locked in at a specific price and design.

Modular upgrades? Will there be any or just like all other consoles it will be what you see is what you get until the next revision.

So in the end, valve is like other game companies that feel they can create a better platform themselves. Some of the notable members include: Atari, Coleco, nintendo, Sega, namco, Sony, MS, SNK...

I will say, back in 2004 VIA and Apex were working to release a PC drop and play system that looked like a regular dvd player. allowing PC games (at the time) to be able to be played on a tv using a controller. It was called the ApeXtreme and in conjunction with DISCover technology to make it all work.

Valve and their steam-box would be no different than MS and their xbox so how long until we get the EA-box?

DigitalAnalog1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Here's the difference: The steambox is supposedly made of components from on-the-shelf materials which means any 3rd party manufacturer like Razer can easily create their own in sync with Valve's license. This is brilliant in a sense since the risk is lower and those who are not inclined to be interested in "exclusives" can get most of the 3rd party games available easily. Valve's ONLY market is STEAM, the steambox is merely a conduit to have more people not willing to invest for a full on PC to get into the steam service. In other words, the more accessible it is to get steambox to the gaming masses, the more revenue it would bring, even if it means having 3rd party companies eating up the hardware revenue in itself. PC games are superbly customizable so you may actually see an array of different steambox models ranging from standard to high-end that won't split the market. A feat unable to be replicated on the 1st party consoles.

Secondly, the components itself regardless if up-gradable or not may match up pound for pound in raw power compared to next-gen consoles for the same price. You may claim that it may be outdated in a year.. that's true, if you're COMPETING with the PC itself. The next-gen consoles would ALSO be OUTDATED by the next year if they compete with the PC specs, so how is this a negative?

What they're doing is trying to push the PC market to be far more accessible to the masses. Sure, EA and Ubisoft could do the same but they don't have the same brand power as Steam. To emulate the steambox would b counter productive when their games are the main source of revenue from the console market especially when they don't have the same support from other 3rd party studios.

The steambox, unlike the consoles is basically a portable PC. Meaning they have access customized graphic options that can cater to those that will sacrifice resolution/effects for frame-rate vice versa. Valve may actually take a good chunk of the "core" market and may change how the next-gen cycle would play out.

darthv721955d ago

i dig what you are saying but there are advantages to a closed system for developers. they dont have to worry about lest common denominator. least when developing for consoles in general.

PC's have so many variables that game developers try and take into consideration. Meaning will their project be able to run on someone's rig that may have a 7600GS or a radeon 9800Pro? not to mention the different CPU and memory configurations.

Valve is doing the same as MS and trying to pursue a basic set of standards that 3rd parties can take advantage of. The original xbox was pretty much the same idea of a pc in a console shell.

But people wont see it like that because that is MS and this is Valve. Lets look at it from a more traditional way. Panasonic released the 3DO but the 3DO from a conceptual POV was meant to be a set of standards that other companies could develop units around.

in fact, that is why there is more than just the Panasonic 3DO models. Sanyo, Goldstar, even Creative Labs had a variant that was for PC's. I understand what Valve is wanting to do but they cant just come up with the idea and expect others to run with it (ala 3DO) so they will have to dedicate themselves to establishing this platform if they want it to be a success.

They are like SNK. SNK made games for other systems but then they decided to make their own and make games for that instead. NeoGeo was hell of expensive but there was nothing else like it on the market (for its time).

Back to my first part. regardless of the hardware being outdated after a year does not mean the programmers suddenly stop getting better at it. i mean, we have systems that start off with games that look and play a certain way and then you compare them to ones developed later on and it is night and day different in quality.

The same hardware was used from beginning to end. They just get better at finding new ways to make things work. relying on their skills more so than the hardware.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1955d ago
ChrisW1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

The only real problems that I have with STEAM is when I launch a game that requires Windows Live or RockStar Social Club.

Windows Live being the worst!

Other than that... 99% of what people complain about, I've never had problems with. And I do believe that this STEAMBOX console will eliminate all of the hardware incompatibility problems. As for connection problems, it's more than likely your lame Internet provider's fault.

SilentNegotiator1955d ago

Just another article inventing a controversy (because tiny FB groups are so important) for hits.

Choc_Salties1955d ago

I'm fundamentally ok with a steam-based console/pc device - what I am concerned about is a potential lock-in with hardware and this thing become yet anothe console, even though it doesnt aim to be one now

DesVader1955d ago

Well said, and I agree. Even though I really look forward to the Steam console, I don't want it to be another proprietary locked-in situation like PS3 or XBOX or Wii, but from the sounds of it, you can upgrade hardware etc. etc. so you are right, it doesn't seem like its heading that way. Time will tell.

Beastforlifenoob1955d ago

Yeah but console games don't like upgrading their hardware lol.

schmoe1955d ago

I think you wrote that article just so that you can use the term "cross-mojonation" innit???

Pandamobile1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

I haven't read such an uniformed opinion piece in a long, long time. The author is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel for negative opinions on Steam.

I mean really, a third of the piece is quotes from a tiny little Facebook group with 113 members.

"At present most games require a state-of-the-art PC"

Laughable. Most games released in 2012 will run fine on just about anything with a discrete GPU and a dual core CPU.

"However, one must also take into account that giving Valve a monopoly on the gaming market is something that would not be entirely wise on our part."

Valve already controls a monolithic 70% of the PC digital distribution retail space, which is obviously not a monopoly, but shows that they are clearly in control of this space (and it's brought nothing but good to PC gamers for the last 7 years). And to be perfectly honest, Valve is the last company I'd peg as "corruptible".

"However, if they were prevented from doing this on Valve consoles due to pre-installed anti-piracy see where I'm going with this."

Valve have stated on multiple occasions that they don't give a rat's ass about piracy. They see it as a service issue on the part of the developer or publisher more than anything.

I really wish people would do even a little bit of research and fact checking before writing anything.

PandaMcBearface1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

External links (if you want ofc):

This was intended to be a humorous article and although I do admit that it's not the most neutral and fair-minded of pieces, opinions for the most part never are :)

Zha1tan1955d ago

I fail to see a problem with valve controlling 70% of the PC digital distribution market.

Its funny to me how Ubisoft and EA still try to crack the digital PC market yet have inflated digital prices and expect people on PC download to pay full retail price. Not only that they offer poor services that are anti consumer and then wonder why every stays with steam and they barely get a slice of the pie.

FrostyZipper1955d ago

Hear hear. Granted it was a POS when it launched but since those dark times Valve has only added and expanded and I now firmly believe that Steam is something no self-respecting PC Gamer should be without. The offline support could be a little better (go online to go offline... uh, what?) but overall it's a fantastic program and it burns my ass seeing people slam on it for no adequately explained reason.

aliengmr1955d ago

You don't have to go online to go offline. At least not anymore. When Steam starts without an internet connection it asks if you want to go offline.

Qrphe1955d ago

I wonder if this is the end of Valve games on consoles

Show all comments (64)
The story is too old to be commented.