Valve head says division between desktop and console gaming is artificial, sets goal for controller development
We are all part of the same gaming community regardless of platform
Exactly correct. Some of us just have a higher standard.
Does Gabe Newell want Console Gamers, PC Camers and Mobile Gamers to get along and play nice with him as mediator?
I don't like when people think down on differences in people or differences in preference of gaming. For me, there is a difference when playing games on PC and consoles, it's not artificial at all. When i play strategy games like Civ or Simcity, ofcourse i'm going to be in a more closed down environment and delve deep into my tactics because these games require more thinking. When i want to enjoy a great story and great setpieces in games like Uncharted or God of War i choose the comfort of a 3-seated leather couch and perhaps bring friends over so they can enjoy the movie like experience with me. If i want a party like experience i bring friends over for FIFA or some racing games. There is a difference in preference here. I would never use my workplace PC to play movie like games in the living room because i don't want a vacuum machine going all noisy in the living room and something big as a PC there. I don't think that there should only be PC gaming or only console gaming, i like the fact that the industry allows for options. Gabe Newell is a smart fellow, but he doesn't understand that perhaps people don't always like things that are just the same. I mean, that's what this industry has thrived upon, differences in options.
Well my gaming PC and my PS3 are both hooked up to the same LCD TV. Just a push of a remote button between the two of them.
Same here. I just love gaming, i hate idiots who get offended when other idiots insult a metal box the they happen to play their games on.
Basically same deal here. All run through my receiver via HDMI (well, except the Wii).
For now this is best possible way to play games... PC and PS3 connected (HDMI both) to Sony Bravia TV.. I can play 2 games at the same time.. or play games on ps3 and then switch fast to PC and comment here stupid comments about my setup! ;) in the end my couch and TV becomes a great fast travel device, and I can connect with any of you and play games happily ever after...
I swear this guy never gets bad press. I welcome any potential console gamers who want to have a pc/console. Get ready..
So so true, i never thought having too many games would be a problem but it is i tells ya, it is. Curse those god damn steam sales.
lmao. steam sales portrayed as a villain. nice.
I play multiplats and my console emulators on the big screen TV in the living room and sometimes a relaxing PC Game like Minecraft.......... but I play my hardcore PC Exclusives on my monitors mainly for the Peripheral view i get from a 3 monitor Eyefinity set up! I just Love that peripheral view, it makes FPS and racers so much more realistic!
Yup. Our common enemies are those idiots that claim videogames cause widespread violence.
I think in order for Valve to become successful in the console market they need to produce more games. Their minimalistic approach worked on Steam because it was the only hub for games at the time on PC and developers were more than willing to have their games hosted there, but in order for Valve to compete with MS and Sony, we need to see more games being developed by Valve and not the 1 game every 2 years deal they do.
I think they're in a fairly comfortable position. Steam is thriving and they've made the PC more versatile and accessible than ever. Plus, fine art takes time. They'd no doubt be in a powerful financial position, but they can still make classics with a 10 year old engine. We'll surely be seeing some big steps in the next 2 years I think.
There are already thousands of games on Steam, yet you say that Steambox's success relies on Valve developed games? Explain.
They'll have to be ported to Linux soon
^ Not sure why the disagrees @ Letros... Some people must think that these games run on Steam; that Steam is some kind of platform. Well, Steam is a store. Sure, it's a really cool store, with lots of great sales, and you always run in to friends there, but yeah, still a store. The games run on Windows. Or, to a much lesser extent, Mac. Steam currently lists about 40 titles as Linux compatible, of which roughly 10 are games you've actually heard of, and the rest are iOS ports. In my estimation, Steambox is either going to run the best damn Windows emulator Linux has ever seen (this is possible), or, yes, Valve is gonna have to step up and get some content ported to Linux.
I think for value to be a success in the console market is to convert as many games to linux as fast as possible on a slimmed down linux and show the pc gaming community that they can big boost to their gaming rig by downloading linux onto their gaming rig
When you buy an MS or Sony game, you're paying a $10 "lolconsole" tax. That's why PC MSRP is typically $50 while console's is $60. Valve continuing PC pricing trends on a PC-similar cost effective "console" is going to be a boon to the console market. Assuming the stubborn kids can figure out the math, of course.
whoever disagreed must be drunk! It always annoys me that console games are always £10 more than the pc version. No sure why this is but good luck to valve i hope they can keep their "console" games price down so that others will be forced to lower prices.
The reason console games cost more is to do with both publishers and cost of time development for said console.
But also PC games cost less because of hardware costs and it runs most of the time on bog standard code.
Games go down in cost pretty quickly unless you have to have the game day 1.
Games cost more on the consoles, because it is what publishers decided the market could bear. It has nothing to do with production costs, or licensing fees. Even steam has a "tax" as they take a percentage of each sale, otherwise there would be no money in it for valve. The reason you see so many sales on steam is because it generates interest in the game, and some revenue is better than none. The reason you don't see it on other digital markets is because if you can sell one product at 4 times the price, then your overall doing better, than say 4 sales at 1/4 the price. Get what you can out of the people willing to spend it, then wait to drop it for as long as you can to maximize revenue. The two markets have a different mentality when it comes to revenue generation. The problem with the current digital markets on consoles is that there is little incentive to buy when retail costs the same, or they wait too long to drop the price so it's more beneficial to buy physical. When it comes to PC physical products, the reason they are cheaper is because again, it is what they've decided the market can bear. For the most part, big PC gaming has gone the way of digital, so the retail exists for those that don't care to go that route, or don't have access to it, however packaging and shipping and all the other things that go along with physical is about equivalent to that "console tax".
@USEYOURFIST: The reason console games are more expensive is because the console manufacturers make game developers pay licencing fee's to put games on the consoles. With PC games a developer can make whatever they want and immediately release it with no extra costs. Windows is an open platform. Console games need to be sent to MS/Sony/Nintendo to be approved then they need to pay a licencing fee, That fee is then passed on to the end user.
They aren't entering the console market, they are just helping to market PC gaming properly. Other companies have made similar machines, but not with the powerful steam name.
The more I read about Valve's venture into the "living room" the more I am convinced that they aren't actually making a "console" in the traditional sense, like MS and Sony. Seems to me they are doing several things instead of banking on a single piece of hardware. I don't think the actual Steambox is intended to compete with MS and Sony, instead its just part of a larger plan. Valve also seems to be doing the same thing they did with Steam, starting small and allowing it to grow slowly.
"I think in order for Valve to become successful in the console market they need to produce more games. Their minimalistic approach worked on Steam because it was the only hub for games at the time on PC and developers were more than willing to have their games hosted there, but in order for Valve to compete with MS and Sony, we need to see more games being developed by Valve and not the 1 game every 2 years deal they do." Wut. Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 2007 Portal - 2007 Team Fortress 2 - 2007 Left 4 Dead - 2008 Left 4 Dead 2 - 2009 Alien Swarm - 2010 Portal 2 - 2011 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - 2012 Dota 2 - Whenever. Still in beta, but highest played game on Steam. For a company having a little under 300 employees, managing an entire digital distribution service, and constantly updating all of their games with pretty massive new content, they pump out games pretty damn fast, and often. In fact, other developers don't do all that, having just as much manpower, and they STILL do the standard 2-year cycle. Normally, I would wish dev cycles were longer, as 2 years still seems very rushed. But the speed that Valve manages to push out their releases, the quality of their games, and the insane amount of post-game support is amazing.
So with a track record of about 1 title per year it'll be enough to keep up with other companies that push out 2+ 1st party games? I'm not saying Valve's games aren't good, but they don't do much to convince me to get a Steam Box and just stick with Steam on PC.
I think if Valve, were to make a console, they would definitely expand their manpower for 1st party titles. I think the problem Valve faces is that of their titles already being multiplatform releases. Imagine the outrage if their games became exclusive to one system. Plus, being multiplatform makes them a good deal of extra money. I am 99% sure that Valve would push for PC exclusive titles to be compatible with the "Steambox", and it wouldn't be too big of an issue as it's planned to be a Linux-based OS with PC-style architecture. Simply having those PC exclusives fills up a large chunk of the first party gap. The way I see it though, if you have a good PC with Steam, there would be no reason to buy a Steambox anyways. The whole point of the "Steambox" is to provide a simplified PC experience to Billy Bob Biller who doesn't want to do the initial time-consuming research into building a gaming PC. It's not aimed at the PC crowd at all. They want the console crowd. A lot of what is probably going to be part of the Steambox is happening right now on Steam anyways, such as the console-esque interface of Big Picture Mode, the Full Controller Support label, and Valve adding split-screen to their games. It's really just going to be a consoled PC. Which is damn well fine in it's own right.
Microsoft were successful this gen despite only having 3 aaa exclusives...Steam will share all the pc exclusives plus valves exclusives plus the previous generations of pc games exclusives... I think that's plenty enough to offer over what the usual consoles push out from gen to gen.
I welcome all and any competition in the games/console business...we the consumer are the winners for it :)
Thats why I think it s funny when people disagree that PC isn't the same as console. Yes they aren't the same machines (meaning one can be upgraded to run newer games and make them look better, an the other is limited). But in the end, we both enjoy playing games with are friends or solo. Thats what makes us gamers.
This Gabe guy is getting way over his head just wait till the damn console hits, will ya? ;)
It's called "building hype".
At least now we know why there is no HL3 for consoles. Gabe wants this baby for the steambox.
Man these Valve guys are genius! I mean, who'd ever have thought that you could plug a television AND a controller in to a computer? This is revolutionary, groundbreaking stuff here, folks. Finally, I no longer will have to endure the taunts and ridicule from my friends as they kick back on the couch playing games, while I'm strapped to this damnable computer chair - arrrrgh! /s
They are similar. They are not the same. They have become similar through time, although their histories have traveled down very different paths. The internet has brought these two platforms closer together, this is true. Much moreso than the gradual emergence of Consoles getting harddrives, keyboard and mice support, etc...and PC's getting outputs to large TVs, stereos, and gamepads. However, consoles will always be what they are...an outdated piece of PC hardware that is sold to the masses due to it's eventual affordability. It's lack of upgradable components has, and always will, seperate the PC market from the console. It will always be different. I'll tell you why. The PC market functions in realtime. It relies heavily in the online realm. So heavily that it's hardware must be completely upgradeable in order to keep up with the industry. This can never be true with consoles unless they change the landscape of how consoles are manufactured. The console market functions in a psuedo-realtime environment. Limited by a stable hardware the online component is forced to adhere to it. That means upgrades must remain in scope to improve what is already there...instead of moving on and forcing hardware upgrades to keep up with software. This is the exact reason I have always chosen hardware to rule over software. Under these conditions the hardware is optimized and improved to bring maximum performance and functionality...squeezing every last ounce of worth from a given product. Not so with PC. Under that particular environment the software relies on hardware to improve performance thus giving software no real reason to be efficient or improved upon. It is masked by ever-so bloated hardware specs to keep up with poorly written software and updates. This is why hardware on PCs become "outdated" so fast. So, if Newell wants to make a statement about console and PCs being the same then he may be in for a wakeup call. If he thinks he is going to run console gaming like the PC market then he may as well release a 600.00 console like Sony had done this generation and call it a PC in order to get people to buy it. Even if he just extends the PC to the living room there will always be a seperation between the PC and console markets unless he makes this box completely upgradeable to keep up with their products. By doing so will drive up costs considerably and will completely defeat the purpose of consoles to begin with.
I want a steam box, I've been buying a lot of low powered games on Steam for a while now ... my PC is too weak to run today's games... but i'm concerned i'll lost backwards compatibility as the steam box will run Linux. And BC is why i'm sick of consoles. I'm tired of not being able to play my old games on my new hardware every generation.
Then install windows on your steambox. He said it would be possible and it is on the prototype they showed earlier.
cant wait for my steambox
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.