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.
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.
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.
one good thing could be that game controller settings will be more standard and better calibrated for PC games.
@newmonday 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 :)
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 Hardware...will it be outdated within a year because pc development would continue while units are locked in at a specific price and design.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?
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.
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. Well...at 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.
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.
Just another article inventing a controversy (because tiny FB groups are so important) for hits.
Also no more bad pc ports!
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
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.
Yeah but console games don't like upgrading their hardware lol.
I think you wrote that article just so that you can use the term "cross-mojonation" innit???
It's possible :<
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 software...you 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.
External links (if you want ofc): http://www.explosion.com/wh... http://amplicate.com/hate/s... 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 :)
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if this is the end of Valve games on consoles
Don't want, Won't buy.
The only thing this is going to do is take away some great pc titles and sell it on steam... Thanks VALVE should of made Episode 3 or Portal 3 instead.
yeah, coz im sure the same guys who would be programming Episode 3 or Portal 3 are the exact same guys who are putting the hardware together for a Steam console.
what, you think it isn't gonna take away people from other key games. Alright fanboy's keep defending this see where it takes you.
Who actually hates Steam? More importantly, do any of them live near me so I'm sure to avoid their happy asses? It's another means of game distribution, little more. It's like hating cartridges or DVD's. "Oh but it's DRM...WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!" ; Who gives a shit? Seriously...who? "They have a monopoly" Ummm, no they don't. They're the most popular because they offer the best service currently. There's Origin ("But that's worse than Steam!!!" Yeah whatever), Green Man Gaming, Gamersgate and countless other digital distribution services. "Most games require a state of the art PC" That's just idiocy. The sheer amount of indy games being released on there immediately puts paid to that argument, never mind all the other stuff that has numerous settings to run on far, far less than state of the art PC's. The Steam sales alone are more than enough to counter any argument I've ever seen thrown at the service - GTA Collection including GTA 4 and the expansions for £4.99? The Valve Collection for £24.99? You can't beat value like that.
Yeah my laptop is absolute shit in terms of gaming computers but I can play a buttload of games on it still, recent and old.
I don't know if I'm interested in this yet, but if it can force MS and Sony into more competitive prices and upgradable consoles, I'll be happy. What is sure is that I won't be able to afford every 'console' next gen.
I'm sorry who the hell buys PC games on disc anymore? Most games are steam-only anyway. I bought Super Meat Boy on disc but only cause it was 5 dollars, and no, it didn't download the game from Steam it installed it from the disc. Ive never had any problems with steam in my life. It's actually perfect.
the steam service in perfect. their application, though, runs like crap.
What is it exactly that 'runs like crap' ?
Love Valve, despite their almost-monopoly on PC gaming via the Steam client. I hope this drives competition in the console gaming sector. Curious as to what effect this will have on availability of future Valve games, though. I can't see them making, say, Half Life 3 exclusive to their console only because they enjoy things like money and success.
"I can't see them making, say, Half Life 3 exclusive to their console only because they enjoy things like money and success." Well they gotta have something on the "steambox" that you can't get anywhere else and Half Life 3 would be THE killer exclusive for the "steambox".
I hadn't considered the thought of them needing an exclusive to help drive sales. I guess it's still hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of them being in the same group as Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. Strange and interesting times ahead!
They wouldn't prevent a steam game from going on steam. It would be a cross buy PC Mac Linux situation. It would have to be.
"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." you're an idiot, the majority of people love steam.
What parts of the Internet are you reading? Most people love Steam as a platform and Valve as a developer because of their fantastic support through Steam. It's probably a small form PC that they'll release without effecting their current PC user base at all and continue to release exactly the same content for. The only real hatred I've seen towards Steam/Valve are from people bitter over their, now years old, negativity towards certain consoles.
I'm afraid Valve does not know what it's own core fan base and end users actually want from them. Focus on a middle man hardware box makes them sound like they been tinkering around the office for years instead of producing the Software that everyone wants. A Steam box might be cool in some aspects, but in today's market, what makes me want or need that enough to justify its price?
It will probably be up gradable meaning that you wont have to keep purchasing a pricey console but only upgrades
When has Valve ever shown it doesn't know what its core fan base wants? I have no clue what they plan to do or what the price will be but if any company knows what its target customer base wants its Valve. Valve has been well aware people want HL3. If they were a publicly traded company like EA we would probably know more or even played it years ago. That isn't the case. The complete lack of info should tell you they have had something big in the works for a while. Personally I'm glad the held off on HL3. The FPS genre being what it is today HL3 might have gotten lost in the mix.
I don't think it'll do too well, at least not internationally. Valve isn't the household name Nintendo, Playstation and Xbox (Microsoft) is.
They said the same thing about Steam. Not only were folks convinced DD would fail but it was supposed to be impossible to turn a profit in Russia due to the high piracy rate. If Valve is good at anything its having the patience and drive to build something. I would also say that PC gaming is more popular internationally than it is in the states.
It's about time the PC had some/any kind of level of a standard for being able to play a game. The reason PC games require state-of-the-art computers, is because no one optimizes anything. Only Valve does anything of the sort, though, I suspect that's because the Source Engine is extremely old.
You do realize in most cases the technology trickles down from PC to console, right?
I have a dumb question for anyone that can answer. I am a console gamer so I don't know anything about steam. Do you stream games or do you download them to your HDD on your PC? And then own them? I am curious because I am interested in valves steam gaming machine.
Ya u download them and yes you own and buy games unless valve ever goes bankrupt but i dont see it happening
You download them into your HDD. Steam is unique in many ways: 1- best community support: screen shots, game recommendations, green light and many more other features. Some games even have YouTube support! 2- steam sales and humble bundles: you can buy a whole publisher catalog on steam for 50$. Look at this: http://www.humblebundle.com... Pay what you want for 7 THQ games! 3- doesn't cost money/time to update games. 4- indie friendly: you will always have the best version of your indie games on steam. 5- steam work shop: share and download user created content. 6- cross platform play: both skull girls and portal 2 support cross platform play with ps3 7- steam cloud: Saves and even settings like key bindings and controls are saved on steam cloud 8- mod support. 9- free great games like tf2 and dota2 10- could go on and on but I think I've said enough, basically it blows everything away. The only reason I still have a console is because I can't let go of Nintendo games. Hope the list helped clarify things for you!
Thanks meowthemouse your reply was very informative.
Uncharted 2 had twitter and youtube integration
I applaud Valve, if anything this new console will do wonders for Linux gaming.
I really am glad they are taking on consoles, but i need to hear more about so i dont have to fear it and actually be glad it was announced.
I will stick with microsoft and Sony thankyou!
It's still the best thing to ever happen to pc gaming.
Half-Life as an exclusive, or timed exclusive? That sure would shift a lot of units.
New games = $60 New Steam games = $5-25 Instant win for them, plus they have a user base already installed and it isn't the same as consoles which means they aren't trying to steal console gamers, but migrate their PC gamers to one specific location.
While I agree a majority of titles coming to consoles are $60... you statement is not accurate. New games on consoles = $5 - $60 (PSN/XBLA titles have launched as low as $5, even though its rare...it does happen) New games on Steam = $5 - $50 (Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution & X-com all list for $49.99 currently)
steam is hit and miss at best ive used steam since 05 ive used xbl since 05 also and 09 for psn and for me xbl/psn any day of the week steam feels like BUT we can do it just aswell.... but yet there making a console..... valve know whare the money is at thats why there making a console loool
I just came here to say that I enjoy the picture they used for this article.
I disagree completely. I trust Valve not because of their sales on Steam or how they view the problem of piracy. Nor is it because they developed Half-Life or their support for indie titles. I trust them because after 8 years of using Steam they earned it. Steam is a DD retailer and its focused on doing that, well, for nearly a decade. Valve is also privately held and not answerable to shareholders but to their customers. Steam was started at a time when many others were convinced it would fail. Even gamers had a real hard time buying into it at first. But they kept at it. Kept their focus on building consumer confidence in DD. I highly doubt any other company would have been able to do it. Valve never tried to 'sell' Steam to me, they used Steam to sell games. They used Steam to make buying digital games easier. It worked, and their foothold in the market, which is well deserved IMO, proves this. Not every gamer will have the same experience with Valve and Steam and some will always hate it no matter what. But based on what they've proved to me, I would seriously consider buying a Valve console. After Steam's success I doubt anyone will be 'annoyed' with a console from Valve.