Steam Machines, what's the point? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Ailurus

2014-01-08, 02:44 PM

link to the announced ones (http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/valve-steam-machines-specs/)

gaming from your sofa.
a Console with the adaptability of a PC.
a dedicated control that can (hopefully) replace K&M.
a step away form Microsoft's hold on the PC market (yes recently we've started to release more games for Linux but it's still not all encompassing the steam box should help there )
to Line Gabe's pockets with wads of cash

The thing is, steam machines aren't needed for any of the options except the last option. You can plug a 360 controller into your PC already. You can plug your PC into your TV already. There's multiple companies offering pre-built PCs already (in fact, most of the companies which have announced steam machines have been selling pre-built non-steam-machines already). The push towards Linux is a good thing IMO, but that's because of SteamOS, not the physical machines, and Valve has already said that you can install SteamOS on other machines.

Plus, there's no target audience for the steam machines. If you already have a gaming PC, there's no point in buying one. If you don't have a gaming PC, I'd be very surprised if Steam Machines make you run out and buy one, since again there's plenty of existing manufacturers of them.

So, I need to echo the original question - what's the point of them? Sure, I can see where Valve is coming from, but I just fail to see how this will actually get any decent numbers of sales (especially some of the ridiculously high end ones). Would be glad if these things did succeed, but it just looks like a massive impending failure to me.

Akisa

2014-01-08, 03:43 PM

Usually for these sorts of discussions, it's useful to provide a link to relevant information.

Well here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjRueOEjpcA) a video that sums up nicely what I think.

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-01-08, 04:12 PM

It's a Console+ (because consoles are just underpowered gaming PCs) that you don't have to build yourself. And a lot of them look pretty.

Mando Knight

2014-01-08, 05:53 PM

It's a Console+ (because consoles are just underpowered gaming PCs) that you don't have to build yourself. And a lot of them look pretty.

Well, the new generation of consoles are underpowered gaming PCs with gimmick devices attached (Wiimote and GamePad for the Wii-U, integrated Kinect for the XBox One... and PS4's gimmicks are mostly optional...) to provide a different gameplay experience than a PC with a 360 controller plugged in could provide.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-01-08, 06:12 PM

McDouggal

2014-01-08, 06:31 PM

I'm mostly disappointed with the name. Seriously, they could've gone with GabeCube!

Rustic Dude

2014-01-08, 07:35 PM

The point? They run on coal.

Reverent-One

2014-01-08, 10:22 PM

Well, the new generation of consoles are underpowered gaming PCs with gimmick devices attached (Wiimote and GamePad for the Wii-U, integrated Kinect for the XBox One... and PS4's gimmicks are mostly optional...) to provide a different gameplay experience than a PC with a 360 controller plugged in could provide.

So basically the Steam Machines can replicate the main experiences of the PS4 and Xbone (since while you can't avoid getting the Kinect, in actual use it's still optional) with better hardware. Like Carpe said, it's a Console+.

Well to be fair, while in eight years the Xbone and PS4 will be outdated, for now they're quite powerful. And the PS4 (don't know Xbone specs) will get better once programmers learn to optimize for more cores.

Wii-U, yeah. Way underpowered. It saddens me to think of how great a good Monster Hunter PC port would be.

From the discussion in the link, it sounds like the Machines priced similarly to the XBone are significantly better hardware-wise.

Nadevoc

2014-01-08, 10:29 PM

I haven't looked at any of the new details, but the reasoning behind them when they were first introduced was basically the guaranteed compatibility that consoles have. You get a PS4 game, you know it'll run on your PS4. You get a PC game, and it might not run on your PC (if your GPU isn't good enough, you don't have the RAM, etc).

That said, it's an issue that really isn't a big deal. Ten of fifteen years ago, PC game compatibility was more hit and miss. Recently, though, it's become not that big an issue.

It's also an issue that isn't completely solved when you release a dozen different Steam boxes. Games can still easily list which Steam boxes they'll work on, but it'll be annoying to have to check "Let's see... I have Steam Machine 7A.... okay, there it is amongst the dozen offerings."

warty goblin

2014-01-08, 10:37 PM

Nadevoc

2014-01-08, 10:44 PM

I already have a gaming PC, it works great.

I already have a controller for my PC, it works great.

I have a couch, it works great, though I don't game from it.

My PC runs a pretty good OS built by a company with decades of experience building OSs. Steam can't manage a download queue - despite its entire function being to download stuff. I've got no faith that Valve can produce an OS I want anywhere near my hardware. My PC also does a hell of a lot more than play games. Why would I want a less versatile machine? Achievements, 'collectible' cards and unlocks? What do they think I am, twelve?

My controller has good precision. Maybe touchpad doohickies will be better, but frankly I have my doubts. I like being able to feel the resistance in the thumbsticks, it's useful. If I need precision, I have a mouse.

My couch isn't impacted one way or the other. Which is the important thing when the chips come down.

I'm fairly certain they're just slightly modifying a version of linux, not making an entire OS.

And I would be shocked if they didn't make it compatible with the controllers already out there. Doing so would be shooting themselves in the foot, since they've already got a big game library that's already designed with those controllers in mind.

That said, this response covers something people are missing. People are saying it's Console+ and saying that's why people would want it. Except it's PC-.

Reverent-One

2014-01-08, 10:49 PM

That said, this response covers something people are missing. People are saying it's Console+ and saying that's why people would want it. Except it's PC-.

So are consoles, and they still make do.

Grif

2014-01-08, 10:51 PM

That said, this response covers something people are missing. People are saying it's Console+ and saying that's why people would want it. Except it's PC-.

This exactly.

Add in the fact that Valve isn't actually taking substantial risk with this. As far as I can tell, they only provided the R&D, concept, SteamOS, and some initial prototypes. The rest of the costs is shouldered by the various hardware manufacturers that Valve apparently contacted to manufacture the actual commercial SteamBoxes. If it flops, it's not a big deal for them.

Even if it sells like only 100,000 units, it'll still be a win for Valve since that's potentially 100k more users using Steam, which where the money currently lies anyway.

warty goblin

2014-01-08, 11:00 PM

So are consoles, and they still make do.

Consoles to some extent get different games than PCs. There's a lot of overlap, but the differences - particularly historically - are significant. So if you're into those games, a console is a good investment. If you're into the sorts of games a PC gets, a PC is a good investment. And if you're into both to some degree, PC + controller or PC and console cover the bases. I'm pretty much in that last camp, I like a lot of console-style games, but also the sorts of strategy titles only found on PC.

So why would a person like me want a Steambox? I can already play PC games on my PC, so it offers nothing new there. And for more than a few PC sorts of games, any control mechanism with fewer hotkeys than a keyboard just won't do the job. I can already play many console games as well, with a controller no less. My PC also plays movies, compiles code, processes word documents, and a wide variety of other tasks, pretty much hassle free. Seems to me that if I wanted to spend money to get more out of gaming, a console would let me play games I can't right now. The Steambox is just a different - arguably inferior - answer to a question I've already got answered quite satisfactorily.

Nadevoc

2014-01-08, 11:04 PM

So are consoles, and they still make do.

Consoles have exclusive games, large advertising budgets, and a pre-existing fanbase/market.

And Steam is a PC platform. So I feel like it's going to be very hard to get consumers not to ask "Why don't I just buy an actual PC?" and even harder to give a satisfactory answer.

Reverent-One

2014-01-08, 11:09 PM

Consoles to some extent get different games than PCs. There's a lot of overlap, but the differences - particularly historically - are significant. So if you're into those games, a console is a good investment. If you're into the sorts of games a PC gets, a PC is a good investment. And if you're into both to some degree, PC + controller or PC and console cover the bases. I'm pretty much in that last camp, I like a lot of console-style games, but also the sorts of strategy titles only found on PC.

So why would a person like me want a Steambox? I can already play PC games on my PC, so it offers nothing new there. And for more than a few PC sorts of games, any control mechanism with fewer hotkeys than a keyboard just won't do the job. I can already play many console games as well, with a controller no less. My PC also plays movies, compiles code, processes word documents, and a wide variety of other tasks, pretty much hassle free. Seems to me that if I wanted to spend money to get more out of gaming, a console would let me play games I can't right now. The Steambox is just a different - arguably inferior - answer to a question I've already got answered quite satisfactorily.

So you've established yourself as a PC gamer, who only gets consoles for the exclusives (since why buy a console to play games you can get on the superior hardware of a PC?), and this seems to be mainly a move into the console market. So you're likely outside their target audience, like those who normally go console for everything. If you relied on a console for everything, you get better hardware, hardware that you should also be able to upgrade down the line (a goal of theirs to my understanding), most of the games you already play (unless you only played the handful of exclusives) and access to others you couldn't.

Consoles have exclusive games, large advertising budgets, and a pre-existing fanbase/market.

And Steam is a PC platform. So I feel like it's going to be very hard to get consumers not to ask "Why don't I just buy an actual PC?" and even harder to give a satisfactory answer.

See above, it provides the console experience with advantages from the PC side of things that the other consoles don't.

Nadevoc

2014-01-08, 11:20 PM

Define what you mean by "the console experience". Because the last two generations of consoles have been moving towards being just stripped down PC experiences. They play games, music, videos, etc.

Reverent-One

2014-01-08, 11:29 PM

Define what you mean by "the console experience". Because the last two generations of consoles have been moving towards being just stripped down PC experiences. They play games, music, videos, etc.

I mean the plug and play, couch sitting game play experience. The main reason people buy consoles.

Rakaydos

2014-01-08, 11:40 PM

The Wii U isnt THAT weak. Technicaally, it may be one of the weakest of the current gen, but it's not the same gulf it was in the Wii days.

(I mean, it's not like we're talking the Ouya, right?)

Really, the steambox is offering PC stats in a console package. allowing the high end users to have an experience that blows both MS and Sony out of the water without requiring users to have the technical savvy to put together their own gaming machine, the main draw of consoles for the PC/Console multiplats.

And consider this- lets say they launch with Steambox 1.0, Steambox 2.0, and Steambox 3.0. In 2 years when the tech improves, they retire the 1.x(after updates) and launch the Steambox 4.0, while 2.x and 3.x get pricedrops. 2years after that, the steambox 5.0 launches, keeping the high end machines more high end, without mandating a replacement the way consoles do- your older machine simply has to play the same games at a lower quality.

warty goblin

2014-01-08, 11:41 PM

So you've established yourself as a PC gamer, who only gets consoles for the exclusives (since why buy a console to play games you can get on the superior hardware of a PC?), and this seems to be mainly a move into the console market. So you're likely outside their target audience, like those who normally go console for everything. If you relied on a console for everything, you get better hardware, hardware that you should also be able to upgrade down the line (a goal of theirs to my understanding), most of the games you already play (unless you only played the handful of exclusives) and access to others you couldn't.

On the contrary, I'm entirely a PC gamer. My point is that as a PC gamer a Steambox provides pretty much no value or service I don't get already.

And if I were a console gamer? Let's face it, there aren't that many games anymore that really require a PC, and those that do do so because they need the mouse and keyboard. The sit down and play on the couch thing doesn't really work with Company of Heroes or Wargame, so why would I want a weird pseudo-console for that?

See above, it provides the console experience with advantages from the PC side of things that the other consoles don't.
But again, if I want to sit back on the couch and play a console game on the TV using my PC, so long as the game has a PC port I can already do that. I don't need a new machine, I don't even need any dedicated hardware beyond a couple of cables.

Reverent-One

2014-01-08, 11:52 PM

On the contrary, I'm entirely a PC gamer. My point is that as a PC gamer a Steambox provides pretty much no value or service I don't get already.

And if I were a console gamer? Let's face it, there aren't that many games anymore that really require a PC, and those that do do so because they need the mouse and keyboard. The sit down and play on the couch thing doesn't really work with Company of Heroes or Wargame, so why would I want a weird pseudo-console for that?

It's not like there are that many games that require a console. There's already 250+ games running on the steam os, a lot more than the new consoles have. Remember Steam's big push for games to have controller support and releasing their "Big Picture Mode"? They've evidently been preparing for this.

But again, if I want to sit back on the couch and play a console game on the TV using my PC, so long as the game has a PC port I can already do that. I don't need a new machine, I don't even need any dedicated hardware beyond a couple of cables.

Have you considered you might not be the target audience? Crazy idea, I know.

Nadevoc

2014-01-08, 11:56 PM

warty goblin

2014-01-08, 11:57 PM

Have you considered you might not be the target audience? Crazy idea, I know.
Then who is? If I used consoles, it seems to me my console needs are pretty well met, and come with exclusives Steam won't get. The only need I'd have is for PC games not on a console, which, as I noted, don't work for the whole plop down on the couch thing. If I wanted that badly enough to drop a couple hundred bucks on it, I can already do just that, and get a much more versatile machine in the bargain.

Nadevoc

2014-01-09, 12:00 AM

It's worth noting that a number of people play WoW, Starcraft, etc as "couch sitting" games. So I'm gonna disagree on you when you say PC games can't be played that way. PC gamers just elect not to because it's a bit easier to set it up at a desk and they're used to it. Plus they don't have to take up the TV if it's a multi-person household.

Reverent-One

2014-01-09, 12:07 AM

Well, we've covered how PCs can give you the 'couch sitting' experience by just plugging them into a TV like you would a console.

And as far as 'plug and play', I see this as no better than a PC. According to the video linked upthread, there are already 12 different Steamboxes announced. Which means that things can't just be labeled as working on Steambox. It's pretty much the system PCs have now. So just buy a decent PC every few years (about the release cycle of consoles works quite well) and you can play PC games.

Actually, with minimum requirements for their Steam Machines (which they have), they can label them as working for any of them.

I realize that this is meant to bring console gamers to Steam/PC. I just can't see why any of them would look at it and say "Yes! So much better than a PC!" rather than going "Why don't I just do this with an actual PC?"

Because it's closer to what they're used to than a PC is.

Then who is? If I used consoles, it seems to me my console needs are pretty well met, and come with exclusives Steam won't get. The only need I'd have is for PC games not on a console, which, as I noted, don't work for the whole plop down on the couch thing. If I wanted that badly enough to drop a couple hundred bucks on it, I can already do just that, and get a much more versatile machine in the bargain.

And Steam has games the consoles won't get, and no, they aren't all games you can't play sitting on the couch. Then you throw in the better hardware and access to cheaper games through Steam sales as additional benefits.

Rakaydos

2014-01-09, 12:08 AM

Then who is? If I used consoles, it seems to me my console needs are pretty well met, and come with exclusives Steam won't get. The only need I'd have is for PC games not on a console, which, as I noted, don't work for the whole plop down on the couch thing. If I wanted that badly enough to drop a couple hundred bucks on it, I can already do just that, and get a much more versatile machine in the bargain.

Except for the console players who are all about leet graphics. Specifically the demographic that has the disposable income for a high end PC but non of the technical savvy or self motivation to build their own. A pre-built steambox is like a Alienware Gaming Laptop- you let someone else do the optimizing for you.

The Xbone and PS4 wont be able to argue over graphical superiority if the Steambox Elite is a clear winner, pushing both consoles over to stand by the Wii U (who nods and says "Sup? How are those unique experiences coming?")

Nadevoc

2014-01-09, 12:20 AM

Actually, with minimum requirements for their Steam Machines (which they have), they can label them as working for any of them.

If they're willing to look through a list of requirements to pick out theirs, why can't they just compare lists like with current PC reqs? Or, as I said, just update their PC occasionally and not worry about them at all.

Because it's closer to what they're used to than a PC is.

They're making a change anyway. It doesn't make sense to go 90% of the way for an inferior experience.

Except for the console players who are all about leet graphics. Specifically the demographic that has the disposable income for a high end PC but non of the technical savvy or self motivation to build their own. A pre-built steambox is like a Alienware Gaming Laptop- you let someone else do the optimizing for you.

The Xbone and PS4 wont be able to argue over graphical superiority if the Steambox Elite is a clear winner, pushing both consoles over to stand by the Wii U (who nods and says "Sup? How are those unique experiences coming?")

You can easily get someone to build your PC for you now. You've been easily able to do it for at least five years.

(Side note, Alienware isn't that good since Dell bought them)

Rakaydos

2014-01-09, 12:25 AM

If they're willing to look through a list of requirements to pick out theirs, why can't they just compare lists like with current PC reqs? Or, as I said, just update their PC occasionally and not worry about them at all.

They're making a change anyway. It doesn't make sense to go 90% of the way for an inferior experience.

You can easily get someone to build your PC for you now. You've been easily able to do it for at least five years.

(Side note, Alienware isn't that good since Dell bought them)

That's the thing, they arnt going 90% of the way. The whole idea of the steambox is to make a "console" that has maybie 20% the complexity of getting a gaming PC (instead of long lists of specs, you get "Steambox 1.x, 2.x and 3.x" and games that require "steambox 2.1 or better") and 80% of the power of a full up customized gaming desktop.

Reverent-One

2014-01-09, 12:28 AM

If they're willing to look through a list of requirements to pick out theirs, why can't they just compare lists like with current PC reqs? Or, as I said, just update their PC occasionally and not worry about them at all.

Who's they? I'm saying that Valve has minimum requirements for their Steam Machines to meet, presumably so they can make sure they support their games and people don't need to go "Well, the SM A supports these games, but the SM B supports these games".

They're making a change anyway. It doesn't make sense to go 90% of the way for an inferior experience.

And a lot of people would argue going console doesn't make sense at all, and yet people still do it.

You can easily get someone to build your PC for you now. You've been easily able to do it for at least five years.

Easy is a relative term. Again, that people still buy consoles rather than getting someone to build a PC for them like that indicates that there are people who disagree with you.

Mewtarthio

2014-01-09, 12:34 AM

The Xbone and PS4 wont be able to argue over graphical superiority if the Steambox Elite is a clear winner, pushing both consoles over to stand by the Wii U (who nods and says "Sup? How are those unique experiences coming?")

Well, a high-end gaming PC is already the clear winner, but Xbone and PS4 still argue. Here's the thing: The average console gamer doesn't care about what you can get if you upgrade your machine. They don't want to care about that. It's very comforting for them to be able to ask "Will this run on my Xbone/PS4?" and simply be told "Yes" (or, possibly, "Yes, if you buy this peripheral, too"). You can't get that simplicity if you ask "Will this run on my PC?" since every PC is different. It's almost as bad if you ask "Will this run on my Steambox?"; the answer there is "Depends on which Steambox you have and/or how you've upgraded it."

To say nothing of how they'll need to keep releasing new Steamboxes to keep up with PC games. The average console gamer likes that people are currently developing for 8-year-old machines because it implies that, if he buys a PS4 or XBone today, he'll still be able to play modern games on it 8 years from now. Can a Steambox promise that?

Rakaydos

2014-01-09, 12:43 AM

Because PC is some strange beast that console players dont understand.

The idea of the steambox is to bring PC stats to a console-like experience, without scaring off the console gamers with needless complexity. No modding needed or assumed, the steambox would be a console with different versions, rated by how powerful (and expensive) they are.

If you get a high end steambox, it will hold up over 8 years about as well as a 8 year old console. But if you want to upgrade in only 4 years, you can buy a new high end steambox that will play all your old games at higher settings.

Nadevoc

2014-01-09, 12:49 AM

That's the thing, they arnt going 90% of the way. The whole idea of the steambox is to make a "console" that has maybie 20% the complexity of getting a gaming PC (instead of long lists of specs, you get "Steambox 1.x, 2.x and 3.x" and games that require "steambox 2.1 or better") and 80% of the power of a full up customized gaming desktop.

Except they're releasing more than a dozen. Which is kinda ridiculous if you're doing it to "streamline" it.

Who's they? I'm saying that Valve has minimum requirements for their Steam Machines to meet, presumably so they can make sure they support their games and people don't need to go "Well, the SM A supports these games, but the SM B supports these games".

Alternatively, they could just make Steam check your system requirements and not show games you don't meet the requirements for. No need for them to do this Steambox thing.

Easy is a relative term. Again, that people still buy consoles rather than getting someone to build a PC for them like that indicates that there are people who disagree with you.

You literally go to a site and click the "Build and send this to me!" button. That's objectively easy.

Reverent-One

2014-01-09, 12:53 AM

Alternatively, they could just make Steam check your system requirements and not show games you don't meet the requirements for. No need for them to do this Steambox thing.

You know that theory requires you to have the hardware first, right? Doesn't help much in deciding what hardware to buy.

You literally go to a site and click the "Build and send this to me!" button. That's objectively easy.

And yet, people still pick consoles over them. Saying "This system supports all games labeled X" is still easier.

Nadevoc

2014-01-09, 01:11 AM

You know that theory requires you to have the hardware first, right? Doesn't help much in deciding what hardware to buy.

...what? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here, just that you're trying to be all witty and snide. Of course they need freaking hardware. But there's still NO REASON to choose a Steambox over an actual PC.

And yet, people still pick consoles over them. Saying "This system supports all games labeled X" is still easier.

And now you're bringing up things I've already responded to with points you've ignored, so I'm out.

factotum

2014-01-09, 03:43 AM

On the contrary, I'm entirely a PC gamer. My point is that as a PC gamer a Steambox provides pretty much no value or service I don't get already.

The problem with being a PC gamer is that Microsoft really don't like you. They'd rather you go out and buy an XBone instead, and while they aren't going to do anything like strip DirectX out of Windows in the short term, they're certainly not going to concentrate enormous effort on it. This is why something like SteamOS (and the Machines it comes pre-installed on) is a good thing--it means there's more incentive for game developers to produce Linux versions of their games, and having competition for Microsoft in this area is never going to be a bad thing.

My main issue with the Machines is that they don't seem very keenly priced--pretty sure I could put together an equal spec PC and install the freely available SteamOS on it for less than these things are going for.

Trixie

2014-01-09, 06:10 AM

gaming from your sofa.

Um, last time I checked, my laptop has perfectly serviceable HDMI port with which I can connect it to TV and USB port for game pad. Had for last 5 years, and worked fine as 'sofa gaming/movie' machine whole time.

In fact, I looked with curiosity at new steam box specs to see if they will surprise me with anything. And they did - with stupidity. One of them is a PC with integrated graphics and 16 GB of ram. Say what? Two more are PC with rather average stats and 8-16 TB of hdd space. Uh, not only this is going to drive the price through the roof, this is going counter to the whole philosophy of Steam.

From what I can see, we can divide new steam boxes into 3 categories - repainted desktop PCs (down to tower shape), barebones generic computers shoved into VCR like shape, and rarely, like the Alienware one, devices with original form with well though out parts designed to fit it. Sadly, last category, the only even remotely interesting one, is going to be (judging by producers) really overpriced in 90% of the cases.

As for the 'gaming' part, shall I remind everyone that not even all Valve games work on the steam os (which was noted by testers with some surprise) and these that do work much worse than on Windows? :smallamused:

a Console with the adaptability of a PC.

Nope. Console has 'just works' factor. Windows 7/8 has it to a big degree, too. Linux?

:smallbiggrin::smallsigh: :smallbiggrin: :smallsigh::smallbiggrin:

Just look at threads made by people trying to get Tux for running TF2 on linux how it worked for them :smalltongue:

Also, remember the whole Xbox One fiasco? Howls of console gamers 'how dare Microsoft require internet connection on console and/or ties games to your account'? Funny that, XO in its first design was really close to steam box in philosophy, and this ended... badly. I don't see these complains from people accustomed to way consoles worked going away any time soon.

a dedicated control that can (hopefully) replace K&M.

I was curious about that, too, but once game designers asked to test it (read - people held by Valve in pocket) started diplomatically saying 'I will keep my Xbox 360 controller for some games' I turned sceptical.

Now that thing is in the hands of beta testers, they say it's top heavy, touchpads are nice when they work properly but sensitivity is nightmare to set up and damages games badly if you can't do it right, it's too easy to click touchpad as a button, and this thing has at once too many (to quickly adapt to it) and too little (to do every move in say TF2) buttons to use...

We'll see if Valve can fix it in final version.

a step away form Microsoft's hold on the PC market (yes recently we've started to release more games for Linux but it's still not all encompassing the steam box should help there )

Which is about the worst thing which could have happened to PC gaming, IMHO.

Just look at the situation - PC gaming is going stronger than ever, Windows finally has the 'just works' gaming model Macs had, 2 major consoles (that are really just PCs) had botched launches, making more and more people look at PCs, potentially finally winning gaming wars...

And along comes Valve fragmenting PC market once again, driving up game development costs, wasting money of its Windows customers on something they will never use, and overall being a godsend to both Sony and Microsoft console divisions.

Before someone mentions competition - competition is good only as long as keeps market honest. This role is currently performed by Apple with Macs. Valve is way too small to gain market share close to Apple, but influential enough to damage market by introducing second, incompatible standard.

not every gaming rig needs an i7 with 2 dedicated graphic cards. for those who want to play lower spec f2p games spending more on a higher spec machine makes little sense.

Yeah, these people buy (like me) laptops that look to be not only smaller that steam box devices while keeping same form factor, they look to be often cheaper for same specs, too :smallwink:

Really, steam box enjoying four to five digit range sales won't compete with six to seven digit laptops, Quanta and Foxconn have such vast economy of scales steam boxes wont touch it anywhere soon.

GungHo

2014-01-09, 09:12 AM

Define what you mean by "the console experience". Because the last two generations of consoles have been moving towards being just stripped down PC experiences. They play games, music, videos, etc.

It's similar to the Jimi Hendrix Experience, though instead of Jimi Hendrix, the guitarist is C.C. DeVille.

Trixie

2014-01-09, 09:14 AM

The Xbone and PS4 wont be able to argue over graphical superiority if the Steambox Elite is a clear winner, pushing both consoles over to stand by the Wii U (who nods and says "Sup? How are those unique experiences coming?")

The problem is, steambox won't be able to argue any graphical superiority. One, because new AAA games on it are very rare, two, because compared to windows Nvidia/Ati graphic drivers on linux suck. Badly. As in, they don't extract the full potential of even cheapest card, and offer maybe a quarter FPS on strongest ones...

And consider this- lets say they launch with Steambox 1.0, Steambox 2.0, and Steambox 3.0. In 2 years when the tech improves, they retire the 1.x(after updates) and launch the Steambox 4.0, while 2.x and 3.x get pricedrops. 2years after that, the steambox 5.0 launches, keeping the high end machines more high end, without mandating a replacement the way consoles do- your older machine simply has to play the same games at a lower quality.

But it already is steambox 1 to 12, and that's just start. How you compare them when specs on half of them don't even make sense? Integrated graphics and 16 gb of ram? Cut it to 4 if you really want integrated, or cut to 8 and improve graphics, as it is, it makes just as much sense as aero spoilers and alloy wheels on farming tractor. Ditto for 16 TB of hdd space one, it's steambox, with net access, 2 TB will be well enough and it will make the machine far cheaper.

See, this is the problem with linux as base system, both the way games are saved to hdd and the games themselves are incompatible with windows, so if you want to dual boot you need to have every game on hdd twice.

The only way your Steambox 1.x comparison would work is for Valve to dictate components, and even company as huge as Google that exercises a lot more control in its own hardware platform (Android) couldn't do that, leading to market fragmentation and doubts which app works on which phone. I can't see it, it will be same as regular PCs.

Reverent-One

2014-01-09, 09:18 AM

...what? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here, just that you're trying to be all witty and snide. Of course they need freaking hardware. But there's still NO REASON to choose a Steambox over an actual PC.

I'm saying that a system in Steam that shows only what games your system can play is only useful after someone has already bought their hardware, while part of the point of the SteamBox is make the descion easier before they buy the hardware. Like how consoles work.

And now you're bringing up things I've already responded to with points you've ignored, so I'm out.

I haven't seen a decent counter to them yet. Saying that having a PC built for you is easier that buying a system meant to run certain games isn't one. Mainly because it isn't true.

Airk

2014-01-09, 12:50 PM

I remains a mystery to me who Valve thinks is going to buy these devices.

I think we've pretty clearly established that any dedicated PC gamer has no interest in this thing. That's pretty much a done deal here.

That leaves people who are currently exclusive console players. What is THEIR incentive to get this box? I think it's safe to say that if they're not already playing them on a PC, they don't really give a rat about the various indie games and strategy titles and stuff that are the PC's/Steam's strongest advantage. Which leaves either "non-indie" PC exclusives (WoW, Starcraft, LoL, some stuff by Valve, and uh... I'm sure there are a couple of others, but really? Anything with actual pull?) or "But Call of Duty looks so much better on this!"

I am not convinced that there are that many people out there who want to play PC exclusives who aren't playing them already. I mean, yes, gazillions of people play WoW and LoL every day. But I'm not remotely convinced there are gazillions (or honestly, even a high number of thousands) of people who WOULD play them IF ONLY they could do it from their couch in a console-like-way. (I mean, how would that even WORK for WoW? Oh wait. WoW probably won't run on the Steam Box ANYWAY!)

So basically this leaves trying to sell this device to console players because it will play games they can already play on their consoles, but make them look better. Which, to be honest, is something I am skeptical of at the moment, because LINUX.

So yeah. I have no idea who Valve thinks is going to buy these devices, or why they think those people will.

Rakaydos

2014-01-09, 05:31 PM

Airk

2014-01-10, 10:20 AM

Steambox probably isnt going to get that large of a market share it's first time around. Playstation Portable and the Xbox were both stomped in sales by the competition, but the brand was built up for later generations.

And that's the point. Gabe hates Windows. He's making an effort to get PC gaming off the windows platform. If it takes 10 years to break the Microsoft stranglehold on PC games, Valve can prop up the steambox with their own profits until game developers start porting to linux, then making linux exclusives.

Okay; So what does he see his target market being in a decade? Because I don't see any of his problems resolving themselves with time. It's not a question of "this needs more exclusives and name recognition" - both of which were the things that built up the PSP and the Xbox. It's a question of "this is a product that doesn't seem to serve any portion of the market."

(I'd actually go on to suggest that the PSP was basically never a success outside of Japan, where the attitude towards portable gaming is radically different than it is over here, and that the Xbox wouldn't have made it either if Sony hadn't done an epic fail ball drop on the PS3 launch.)

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-01-10, 10:31 AM

I think, when it comes down to it, I'm going to watch with curiosity. I can't read the minds of anybody at Steam, after all. I wouldn't be shocked if they found a way to hit a niche that spendy gaming PCs and consoles have been missing. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one step in a much bigger plan, which makes more sense when we can see the other pieces.

Beyond that, anything without knowledge is just speculation from the peanut gallery. :smalltongue: We know almost nothing, relatively, when it comes to Valve's business strategy. I just know that Valve managed to pull off one of the greatest coups in gaming history (being the name in digital game distribution), and that its history is marked by crazy, attention-getting moves.

I have the suspicion that Valve knows exactly what they're doing.

BRC

2014-01-10, 10:37 AM

Part of it is that a lot of games, especially big AAA titles, are designed to be played on consoles. The PC gaming experience is still secondary to the console one in many ways. WASD and mouse controls feel awkward on a game designed for a controller

Mind you, you can just buy a $20 USB controller.

That said, I think there IS a reason to get a Steam Machine. Maybe not THESE steam machines per say, but building/buying a dedicated gaming PC can be an expensive, complex, and involved experience.

Also, the finances may not be as skewed as you think. Consider, the new consoles are not backwards-compatible. Anybody who buys one is going to need to rebuild a gaming library for it. Playing older games means you need to have a previous-generation console, and then hunt down the games you want to buy.

Consider, a Steam Machine IS Backwards Compatible. You can play all your old Steam games on it, PLUS any older games that catch your fancy, and are no longer priced at $60.
Lets say you are a gamer, you've missed out on a few big releases, stuff like Bioshock Infinite and Borderlands 2, you want to play them. However, you ALSO want to be able to play the new games that are coming out in the next few years.

Buying an Xbox means you would need to get an Xbox 360, to run the older games, AND an Xbox One to run the new ones.

Buying a Steam Machine means you can play decades worth of games, PLUS any new games that come out, and its a lot easier than buying or building a big gaming PC.

Plus psychology is a factor. You already have a perfectly functional computer, especially in this age of tablets and laptops. However, you want to play games, so you budget for a console.
Yes, in practical terms you could get a gaming PC with your console money, but psychology is an issue. If you budget for a console, you want a console.

Rakaydos

2014-01-10, 01:47 PM

Plus, as far as exclusives go, you just know Valve is going to release a number of "3" games for the steambox, to draw in the PC gamers who would otherwise ignore it.(Half Life 3, Portal 3, ect)

Akisa

2014-01-10, 01:59 PM

Reverent-One

2014-01-10, 02:11 PM

Plus, as far as exclusives go, you just know Valve is going to release a number of "3" games for the steambox, to draw in the PC gamers who would otherwise ignore it.(Half Life 3, Portal 3, ect)

Actually, Valve has said they're not going to make games exclusive to the SteamOS or Steam machines. Their philosphy is about open-ness rather than the closed systems of Microsoft (or that they're afraid MS is heading toward) or other consoles.

Granted, that might not exclude early releases of games for SteamOS/Steam Machine.

Jimorian

2014-01-10, 02:30 PM

Makes a lot of sense to me. There's an ecological niche for a living room box that isn't a console, isn't quite a PC, but is flexible enough to fit in with a number of growing trends like streaming devices/services like Roku et al.

Sure it's "easy" to just hook up the existing PC to the TV in the living room, but people don't do that Once something's hooked up, they want to leave it the hell alone. Get the interface right, develop a DVR/streaming function, and make it what Sony and Microsoft are going for HARD with this generation -- the ultimate media center in a box.

That they've developed the leading game distribution system in the world as the primary perk for early adopters just means they'll need to tweak the marketing until it finally connects beyond the initial rollout.

Trixie

2014-01-10, 03:57 PM

Consider, a Steam Machine IS Backwards Compatible. You can play all your old Steam games on it, PLUS any older games that catch your fancy, and are no longer priced at $60.
Lets say you are a gamer, you've missed out on a few big releases, stuff like Bioshock Infinite and Borderlands 2, you want to play them. However, you ALSO want to be able to play the new games that are coming out in the next few years.

Linux issue alone blows a rather big hole in that cunning plan. I can play Windows XP game on Windows 7, I have rather big doubts for my ability to run it on steam OS. Wouldn't just a media center PC be a better solution?

BRC

2014-01-10, 04:19 PM

Linux issue alone blows a rather big hole in that cunning plan. I can play Windows XP game on Windows 7, I have rather big doubts for my ability to run it on steam OS. Wouldn't just a media center PC be a better solution?
Yes it would, in basically every way. A PC would be more versatile and potentially cheaper, seeing as a Steam Box basically IS just a PC. If you really want that games-on-a-couch experience you can take your PC and plug it into your TV with a $10 HDMI Cable.

However, Complexity and Psychology are both problems.

In terms of Complexity, buying and setting up a PC is a bigger deal than setting up a console.

In terms of Psychology, while Consoles and Computers are functionally the same thing, they occupy different psychological places. Nobody blinks twice at somebody with a laptop AND an Xbox.

My point is really that, with the exception of Console Exclusives, which are going to become fewer and farther between, a Steam Machine is going to be a better purchase than an XBONE or PS4. If you accept that somebody IS going to buy a console, it might as well be a Steam Machine, which gives them a much larger library of games.

once you say you don't care about console exclusives yes, a dedicated Media computer is the best option. But at that point the argument becomes "Why buy a console at all?"

People are still buying consoles, therefore a market must exist for them.

The real question is, are there people out there who recognize that the Steam Box is a better deal than an XBONE or PS4, but do not recognize that the best deal would just be to buy a new computer and spend $20 on a USB controller.

Trixie

2014-01-10, 08:41 PM

However, Complexity and Psychology are both problems.

In terms of Complexity, buying and setting up a PC is a bigger deal than setting up a console.

I don't know, aren't media center PCs just as easy to use as consoles? I have media center on my old Vista laptop (came preinstalled) and it is very similar to console or VCR interface. No one should have problems with it.

I just have a big doubts in the steambox ability to catch on.

My point is really that, with the exception of Console Exclusives, which are going to become fewer and farther between, a Steam Machine is going to be a better purchase than an XBONE or PS4. If you accept that somebody IS going to buy a console, it might as well be a Steam Machine, which gives them a much larger library of games.

The thing is: not really. I hate consoles, and yet, I'd get one before steam box. The reason is simple: exclusives. There are several games on console I hear are pure honey, while not even Valve will offer exclusive for steam os.

Yes, I do realize the irony I'd perpetuate system I hate instead of open one, but sadly, I can manage feeble pro-console argument, I can't visualize one for steam box. Except maybe for pretty shape of some of them.

People are still buying consoles, therefore a market must exist for them.

Brand loyalty, exclusives, easy setup. Does Valve have any of these? There had been, what, 4 years since their last popular game, weakening point 1 and 2, and linux spells anything but not 'easy to use', sinking 3.

The real question is, are there people out there who recognize that the Steam Box is a better deal than an XBONE or PS4, but do not recognize that the best deal would just be to buy a new computer and spend $20 on a USB controller.

If steam box manages half of popularity of least popular console by end of 2015, I will eat 100$ steam gift card.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-01-10, 08:46 PM

Brand loyalty, exclusives, easy setup. Does Valve have any of these? There had been, what, 4 years since their last popular game, weakening point 1 and 2, and linux spells anything but not 'easy to use', sinking 3.

Look, unless you know something about SteamOS that I don't (which is very possible: I couldn't care less about it for about the half decade it'll be before I get a new computer), I don't see how "built using Linux" equals "as much setup as Linux".

Mando Knight

2014-01-10, 09:09 PM

Look, unless you know something about SteamOS that I don't (which is very possible: I couldn't care less about it for about the half decade it'll be before I get a new computer), I don't see how "built using Linux" equals "as much setup as Linux".
Android was spun off of Linux, after all, and I've never heard much of a complaint that it was significantly harder to use than, say iOS...

leafman

2014-01-11, 12:22 AM

From a console gamers point of view, a big hurdle the Steam Machine faces is the fact that there are so many of them.

"Which one do I buy? I definitely won't buy the $6,000 SM, that's just silly. I don't know much about specs, so I'm down to just looking at prices. Well, so far the cheapest announced is $499, for that price I can buy an Xbox One, most of the other options are $1k+, but which one is better? And why would I want to pay twice the cost of a console for a 'mid-range' SM?

Too many questions, too much research involved, I'll stick to a console."
-Average Console Gamer

warty goblin

2014-01-11, 12:44 AM

Digital Foundry (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-hands-on-with-steam-os) has a hands-on with the beta of SteamOS. On the one hand most everything they cite as an annoyance can be fixed. On the other hand there's a lot of pretty basic stuff Steam makes either difficult or impossible, so I think it's an open question as to whether it is fixed.

Kudaku

2014-01-11, 06:44 AM

I've been playing PC games for about 20 years now, though I own all three (last-gen?) consoles. There are elements to console gaming I find very attractive:

Plug & Play. While the later versions of Windows have gotten better at this, I still have to spend a decent amount of time tweaking graphic settings, searching for drivers etc pretty much whenever I play something new. Currently going through Black Flag and I'm having a really aggravating screen tearing issue. Battlefield 4 has hiccups. TW Rome 2... Well, when it first launched I felt like I was playing The Walking Dead.

Generally better game state at release: While console games certainly aren't bug-free, they tend to be less buggy than PC games because you don't have to accommodate thousands of different hardware combinations. The developers only have to consider one setup it's easier to test the game thoroughly for bugs. Letting the old grognard in me show for a bit, I remember when games had to be playable and polished at launch because patching was difficult and unavailable to the majority of the player base. The way current games are released, you're better off waiting a few months before picking them up - hopefully they'll be beaten into submission and made vaguely playable in the meantime.

Comfort Level. Yes, you can place your gaming PC in your living room. However, at least in my case I find it much easier to fit a console instead of my tower cabinet, and I'll take less flak for further crowding our already fairly cramped TV setup (Wii, PS3, Xbox, Blueray player, Decoder Box, Soundbar etc).

However, consoles have an extremely limited offer of game genres I really enjoy playing (like RTS, Total War has already been mentioned), and crucially to me: they don't support keyboard and mouse for gaming. Controllers are fine for adventure, driving and fighting games, but if you ever expect me to hit the broad side of a barn I NEED a mouse. I'll never get used to fine aiming on a controller stick, and I've given up on otherwise incredibly good games (Drake's Fortune, The Last of Us etc) because the aiming process was too painful.

I still haven't picked up a next-gen console and I'm not sure if I will - at the moment I don't really see the point. However if Steam can offer me a console that avoids the drawbacks and includes the advantages I've outlined above I very well might buy one.

factotum

2014-01-11, 10:58 AM

Generally better game state at release: While console games certainly aren't bug-free, they tend to be less buggy than PC games because you don't have to accommodate thousands of different hardware combinations.

The problem with Steambox is that this isn't true--just look at the hardware specs already released, and then add on top all the people who will just build a PC and install SteamOS on it. Then, of course, Steam is a download-only service, so one of the reasons console releases have traditionally been less buggy (the fact it's difficult to patch the games) is gone as well.

These two factors mean that developers aiming at Steambox have most of the difficulty of developing for the PC platform generally, which I think is where Valve have maybe dropped the ball--they should have tightly defined the spec of the Steambox to remove the headache of having to adjust for different hardware specs. What they've got is essentially a gimped PC running an unusual OS, so one has to ask why developers will bother to target this rather than the existing userbase of Windows gamers.

Whoracle

2014-01-11, 11:45 AM

Look, unless you know something about SteamOS that I don't (which is very possible: I couldn't care less about it for about the half decade it'll be before I get a new computer), I don't see how "built using Linux" equals "as much setup as Linux".

This right there. One of these days I'll find out why people tend to spread all that FUD at the mere mention of "Linux".

Yes, Linux ca be a pita to setup and get running. That's why (for example) Ubuntu made such strong headway. But on each and every damn embedded device in your household, from your washing machine to your modem/router to your DVD player, there's a ~~85% chance it already runs Linux. Have you had any problems setting your DVD player up? No? Fine.

General Purpose operating systems will always be a pain to set up, no matter if they're Windows, OSX or Linux. That is because they're general purpose. You can't plan for every eventuality. The concept behind the steam box (and any specialist OS out there, too) is to get rid of the "General Purpose".

Also, the driver thing that was mentioned. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. First of all, you can't directly compare current windows games with their linux incarnations, except for very few. That is because games under windows use the Direct3D API for the most part, whereas under Linux OpenGL is used. So you can only compare Win OpenGL games with Linux OpenGL games. And guess what? The Linux variants win out on that, even with the crappy drivers. Valve was as confused by this as everyone else, but the benchmarks are out there. If you compare (highly optimized) Direct3D routines under Windows to (crappily non-optimized) OpenGL routines under Linux, even then linux comes out first, if only by a few FPS.
Adequate comparisons can of course only be made once someone ports an OpenGL game over to Linux and compares that to it's windows counterpart. Or once Microsoft ports Direct3D to Linux.
So, please, for the love of god, stop with that FUD, and read some specs/benchmarks. Please. Unsubstantiated information hurts, no matter if your OS of choice comes out ahead or not.

Jimorian

2014-01-11, 12:35 PM

The problem with Steambox is that this isn't true--just look at the hardware specs already released, and then add on top all the people who will just build a PC and install SteamOS on it.

To Valve, that's just as good as selling a pre-made box.

Here's the point most people are missing in this next generation console debate. The fight isn't over the Game Space and gamers, it's over who gets to be THE interface between people and media for the next 2 decades as Cable and Satellite fade under the domination of the Internet. The company that wins that war is the next Google. This is why Sony and Microsoft stumbled so many times in the lead up to the release of the PS4 and XBone -- they were thinking too far ahead of the gamers they needed to please to get these boxes into peoples' living rooms.

These two factors mean that developers aiming at Steambox have most of the difficulty of developing for the PC platform generally, which I think is where Valve have maybe dropped the ball--they should have tightly defined the spec of the Steambox to remove the headache of having to adjust for different hardware specs. What they've got is essentially a gimped PC running an unusual OS, so one has to ask why developers will bother to target this rather than the existing userbase of Windows gamers.

I think the point that Steam is trying to make is that these companies just have to develop for PC/Windows, and the OS is going to take care of the compatibility issues in one way or another. And since they'll control it, if problems with a game not working come up that otherwise works in Windows, they'll patch the OS rather than the game.

Just remember, the skepticism that surrounded Steam's original launch was much stronger than what we're seeing here. Now the idea that people won't accept only owning their games "in the cloud" is laughable. Same now goes for music and video.

So while I don't expect Steam Boxes to sell anywhere near as many early units as the PS4 or XBOne, they need to get their foot in the door of this extremely lucrative field. And IF they can provide the kind of satisfying user experience they have with the Steam Store to those who do try it out, I wouldn't be surprised to see this catch fire in a way that leaves Sony and Microsoft in the dust.

Forbiddenwar

2014-01-11, 04:14 PM

I just scanned the thread to see if anyone posted this point before, but Cost is a big factor in me buying a steam machine (once all the hype dies down and clear outliers stand out)

If I need a dedicated gaming machine and only have $500 to spend, then here are my alternatives:

A Console (PS4, XBox1) with games running $60 a piece and needing to actually build a collection from scratch.Add in the poor graphics and lower frame rate and I'd rather play on my 5 year old machine.

A PC with Windows: $500 won't get me far there. Even a customized build the cost of software that Microsoft will force down my thought that I don't need for gaming ("Buy Microsoft Word!" now says the pop up screen every time I try to open a file in Open Office) And Microsoft 8 is actively blocking some games from running on them. (IIRC, Mogang refused to pay for Windows 8 certification and therefore Minecraft may not run on newer releases of Windows.

A PC built with Linux: I can get very close to cloning the Steam Machine with this. If I do the hours, days and weeks of independent research, can make the right decisions on components and the person to build it and install the Steam OS for me. But then I have to buy the controller. The point is, why do the work?

The market is clearly not for people happy with their current tech, but for people who are looking at a new machine, either as an addition or as a replacement. And with a new console cycle starting, people might be doing just that.

Now that said, what we saw at CES is clearly simply the first draft. and some first drafts were better than others. And that is what CES is focused on. Emergent, first draft, tech not really ready for anything yet. (I haven't seen the Razors Modular computer on the market yet.) Let's see what E3 brings us.

factotum

2014-01-11, 04:28 PM

I think the point that Steam is trying to make is that these companies just have to develop for PC/Windows, and the OS is going to take care of the compatibility issues in one way or another.

Nuh-uh. Windows games running on a Linux derivative like SteamOS just ain't gonna happen, at least not at any decent level of performance. If Valve had that technology they'd presumably have integrated it into the Linux version of Steam, and believe me, they haven't--if you install Steam on a Linux machine you'll find very few of your games appear in the list, because *only games that have a native Linux port* are shown.

So, the developers still have to code for both the Windows and Linux/SteamOS versions, and while that might be quite simple for some (id software has always used OpenGL due to John Carmack hating the early versions of Direct3D with a passion) it definitely won't be for all.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-12, 02:21 PM

Which is about the worst thing which could have happened to PC gaming, IMHO.

Just look at the situation - PC gaming is going stronger than ever, Windows finally has the 'just works' gaming model Macs had, 2 major consoles (that are really just PCs) had botched launches, making more and more people look at PCs, potentially finally winning gaming wars...

Pardon my foreign language but LOLWUT?

1. Windows 8 "just works"? Really? Not that I have noticed. You might be right that they are emulating Apple though since the statements made when preparing for the 8.1 release all were along the lines of "Users are idiots that insists of using our products wrong"
2. Microsoft would love for you to never, ever, play games on your PC and instead buy and XBone.
3. PC gaming is very weak compared to consoles. The main things PC gaming has going for it is Indie games, which are primarily distributed by Steam, btw.

I have not owned a console since my Sega Megadrive. I will never buy another, for several reasons, but if I was to buy one the order of priority would be:

Steambox
PS4
XBone
Nintendo

Ailurus

2014-01-12, 03:48 PM

3. PC gaming is very weak compared to consoles. The main things PC gaming has going for it is Indie games, which are primarily distributed by Steam, btw.

Figures and/or some other type of proof please. Which are very hard to come by, since I know Steam doesn't release its sales figures, and I can't find any for GoG or GMG either. But, some things to consider:
1) EA at least has PC sales that are comparable to the other platforms. (http://techreport.com/news/25136/ea-financials-show-growing-pc-game-revenue)

2) Last I checked, there's been about 4.2 million PS4s moved, and about 3 million xbones. Both are being declared a "record pace," "massive numbers" and so on. Those numbers are comparable to the low end of Steam's concurrent users (4.3 million in the last 48 hrs) (http://store.steampowered.com/stats/). And at the time of me writing this, the number of concurrent steam users is about 7.25 million, which is equivalent to the total sales of both consoles combined. Sure, both console's sales figures will probably keep increasing over time, but at the same time, Valve has reported 65 million active accounts, (http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/30/5045830/steam-65-million-active-accounts-6-million-concurrent-users) a number that's comparable to the lifetime sales of either the 360 or the ps3.

3) Indie or not, the games lineup of PC is becoming superior to console. Sure, there's a few titles that stay exclusive on each console, but the vast majority get ported to all the systems. And, thanks to Kickstarter and such, PC is getting more and more of its own exclusives. Granted, this is my own preference talking, but there are 0 exclusives on any of the new consoles that interest me at all, and right off the top of my head there's a half dozen games scheduled for the next year to 15 months that have me very excited and are not coming to the consoles - Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Tides of Numenera, Clockwork Empires, Star Citizen, The Mandate.

So, where's this glaring weakness in PC gaming here? Sure, most of the CoD/Battlefield/other mass market FPS people tend to prefer the consoles, but I'd consider that an advantage of PC :smallsmile:

Hiro Protagonest

2014-01-12, 04:18 PM

PC also doesn't just have indies for its exclusives. It has strategy games of all stripes.

Brother Oni

2014-01-12, 06:26 PM

So, where's this glaring weakness in PC gaming here? Sure, most of the CoD/Battlefield/other mass market FPS people tend to prefer the consoles, but I'd consider that an advantage of PC :smallsmile:

Unfortunately the PC also has the DotA and LoL communities, which more than make up for it. :smallsigh:

Zevox

2014-01-12, 06:38 PM

3) Indie or not, the games lineup of PC is becoming superior to console. Sure, there's a few titles that stay exclusive on each console, but the vast majority get ported to all the systems. And, thanks to Kickstarter and such, PC is getting more and more of its own exclusives. Granted, this is my own preference talking, but there are 0 exclusives on any of the new consoles that interest me at all, and right off the top of my head there's a half dozen games scheduled for the next year to 15 months that have me very excited and are not coming to the consoles - Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Tides of Numenera, Clockwork Empires, Star Citizen, The Mandate.
This is definitely a case of person preference talking. Any declaration of one system having a superior lineup will be. For instance, for me, consoles and handhelds have a far superior lineup to PCs, because almost no Japanese-made games come to PCs, and those account for more than half the games I play, and most of my favorite games of all time. PCs by contrast have little exclusive that I care for - mostly strategy games, and I'm fine with only playing the few of those that my crappy PC can handle. And even some of those might be starting to see console ports (see: XCOM).

As far as Steam Machines go... I have no idea what the point is, personally. Early rumors made it sound like they'd basically be consoles that could play Steam games, which might have interested me, but the actual announcement makes it sound like they're basically PCs being made with Valve's new Steam OS. Which is being made using an OS that I keep hearing is a pain in the rear to use. And which are far more expensive than actual consoles. And which have a controller that frankly looks to me like it won't be at all comfortable or easy to use. So yeah, whatever interest I could've had evaporated fast after the reveal.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-01-12, 06:44 PM

Yeah, I've gotten Nintendo consoles for the exclusives.

Now, you could just find a console emulator and then buy copies of the games you download if all you want is offline play...

Ailurus

2014-01-12, 08:54 PM

This is definitely a case of person preference talking. Any declaration of one system having a superior lineup will be. For instance, for me, consoles and handhelds have a far superior lineup to PCs, because almost no Japanese-made games come to PCs, and those account for more than half the games I play, and most of my favorite games of all time.

I'll give you a lot of the Japanese developers being in Sony or Nintendo's pocket (mostly because a lot of Japanese people just don't play PC games). And those Japanese developers who do try to do PC ports tend to be not very good at it.

PCs by contrast have little exclusive that I care for - mostly strategy games, and I'm fine with only playing the few of those that my crappy PC can handle. And even some of those might be starting to see console ports (see: XCOM).

But that one's just flat-out wrong. If you don't want to explore PC games, I've no problem with that. But to assume its mostly strategy games is just a foolhardy assumption. (And also quite ironic, given how much of the TBS market the Japanese console devs are sitting on with Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics and similar)

Sure, PCs have their 4x games that don't show up on consoles (and RTS games, but the RTS market has been quite sparse recently), but there's also been:
-a resurgence of adventure games on PC (nearly all of doublefine's upcoming titles, for example, are PC only)
-plenty of RPGs (Grimrock and Blackguards both stand out in my mind, as well as the slew of incoming kickstarter ones)
-hack and slash ARPGs (Torchlight 2, Path of Exile and Grim Dawn)
-simulations (Kerbal Space Program, Dwarf Fortress, Tropico)
-action/FPS games (Hawken, Mechwarrior Online, and Tribes)
-the totally random indie ones like Papers Please or the Stanley Parable
-sports/racing games I'm sure some exist, but don't care enough about them to have a list on hand.
(note that all of the above are just the ones off the top of my head, nowhere near an exhaustive list)

Regardless of what genres interest you I'm sure you can find multiple recent and good games for that genre which are PC only.

Again, if you don't want to bother with looking up PC games, that's fine. But, claiming that "The vast majority of PC exclusives are strategy games" is an absolute fallacy that hasn't been true for years.

Zevox

2014-01-12, 09:56 PM

I'll give you a lot of the Japanese developers being in Sony or Nintendo's pocket (mostly because a lot of Japanese people just don't play PC games).
The statement in parenthases is the more accurate one. In Japan, it's actually handhelds that are the most popular gaming devices, with consoles (Sony's primarily, Nintendo's secondarily) in second place, and PCs and X-Box are quite unpopular. Which is why you see things like JRPGs becoming more prominent on handhelds last generation, and why Japanese developers almost never bother to port anything to PCs. And why the rare few that do tend to be games with wide international appeal (Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, etc). It's simply a case of the market there being quite different.

But that one's just flat-out wrong. If you don't want to explore PC games, I've no problem with that. But to assume it's mostly strategy games is just a foolhardy assumption.
And it's you misreading my statement. I meant that the PC exclusives I'm interested in are mostly strategy games, not that most PC exclusives are strategy games.

sana

2014-01-12, 10:28 PM

I finally understood why the world needs steam boxes:

Last year my boyfriends godchild wanted a PC for Christmas. Nothing unusual though the kid had a tight budget, a nice upgradeable system would have been in it. I estimated a minimum of 500€ using my own store discounts and to be sure the thing would last him a bit.

So Christmas came and people gave him money for a PC, the kid annoyed his parents asking when he could get his PC.

Then came the day his dad got moronic. Knowing I said around 500€ he saw a PC in the PX, the machine was labeled suitable for gaming now reduced to 650$. So dad went bought the machine, because hey this one had a free mouse and keyboard with it!
So dad dragged home the PC he bought as what he thought was a great deal...

3 hours later the PC shall be known as total junk.
So kid gets PC pre-installed with about 5 toolbars, crap ware and 30 day licenses of some software. Off course he calls me and asks if I can tell him what he needs to play his games...

That was the moment where i couldn't stop laughing anymore, his PC didn't have a GPU (just some intel HD graphics), only a 350watt cheap crappy PSU and it was a first generation I3... Mom called in between on the second line asking; to not tell her son that the PC was bad, it would be good enough for him.

I told them to return that pile off junk to the store, I told them I wouldn't take it for free.
So dad ran off to the store bought a GPU and a PSU (another overpriced 200€ gone and the GPU isn't even that good).

Then came Total war: Rome 2... Now a year later the kids PC can't run the game anywhere near decent... Now they want me to fix that pile of junk. I'm just not sure if it wouldn't be better to give him my spare phenom 2 X4 965 and buy him a A3+ main-board. because upgrading his CPU is gone cost a lot more even if I don't replace the main-board. (not to mention the over-priced GPU wont last long, oh and RAM because he only has 4GB. Maybe I should spring him a spare win7 64-bit while I'm at it.)

If there just would have been a thing like steam boxes back when he kid wanted a pc, at least dad would have understood: Buy a steambox...

Reverent-One

2014-01-12, 10:34 PM

Which is being made using an OS that I keep hearing is a pain in the rear to use.

Where are you hearing this? Who's actually used it that has weighed in so far?

And which are far more expensive than actual consoles.

It's more like there are higher end, fancier versions that are far more expensive, but the more basic versions are about the same cost as other consoles for better hardware.

And which have a controller that frankly looks to me like it won't be at all comfortable or easy to use.

Doesn't look too difficult to me. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeAjkbNq4xI) Some others who have tried it have liked it too. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIP37P41hsA)

Zevox

2014-01-12, 10:41 PM

Where are you hearing this? Who's actually used it that has weighed in so far?
I'm simply referring to the general hearsay I get about Linux itself there. I claim no knowledge of how Steamboxes themselves will work - only that knowing they're Linux-based and knowing the reputation that Linux has does not give me confidence that they'll be easy to use in the end.

Rodin

2014-01-12, 10:49 PM

If there just would have been a thing like steam boxes back when he kid wanted a pc, at least dad would have understood: Buy a steambox...

This to me is going to be the critical market - clueless parents.

I don't see them getting the hardcore market, since the hardcore market is either going to already have a PC or not be interested in the games that are solely available on PC (or the games they might be interested in aren't suitable for couch playing).

But if they can tap into the casual market? That might work.

Of course, as Nintendo found out that group is remarkably fickle...

Reverent-One

2014-01-12, 10:58 PM

tyckspoon

2014-01-12, 11:04 PM

I'm simply referring to the general hearsay I get about Linux itself there. I claim no knowledge of how Steamboxes themselves will work - only that knowing they're Linux-based and knowing the reputation that Linux has does not give me confidence that they'll be easy to use in the end.

The thing to understand is that 'Linux' does not refer to an operating system, not the way saying Windows 7 or OSX does. Linux is a hugely vast *family* of OSes. Many of them are somewhat unfriendly; they're designed for people who want to be and are comfortable being very close to the basic workings and power of the OS. Others are aimed more at the appliance usage model. You turn it on, you use it, you don't understand how it works and you don't need to.. There are often still stumbling points, but many of them come from developers who don't bother to support Linux OSes or do it poorly rather than any inherent difficulty of the OS.

I haven't seen SteamOS, but I would hope it's on the appliance end of the spectrum. Its problems will likely have more to do with GPU driver faults and the scarcity of OpenGL compatible games than anything directly arising from using a Linux-based OS.

Forbiddenwar

2014-01-13, 12:20 AM

I just want to share the Trial by Game channel if you are really interested in the Steam Machine, the OS or the Controller.

From the questions, comments and impressions from that channel, I see:

The Steam OS is as user friendly and automatic as any Console OS. From what I've seen there is no comparison to any PC OS (OSX, Windows, Linux). It also has the option to turn it off and go into Linux kernal if you want to reprogram it.

The Controller is very intuitive and comfortable to use, even for games that traditionally require a mouse and keyboard, like Starcraft 2, Minecraft, etc. It seems Steam has gone a long way to not only make a controller replace a keyboard and mouse, but also possibly improve on the keyboard and mouse design for gaming.

The machine is essentially a dedicated gaming PC with the hardware and software all dedicated and optimized for that purpose, allowing more gaming power for less price. Like a console, except better graphics, cheaper games and upgrade-able.

Zevox

2014-01-13, 12:59 AM

The thing to understand is that 'Linux' does not refer to an operating system, not the way saying Windows 7 or OSX does. Linux is a hugely vast *family* of OSes. Many of them are somewhat unfriendly; they're designed for people who want to be and are comfortable being very close to the basic workings and power of the OS. Others are aimed more at the appliance usage model. You turn it on, you use it, you don't understand how it works and you don't need to.. There are often still stumbling points, but many of them come from developers who don't bother to support Linux OSes or do it poorly rather than any inherent difficulty of the OS.

I haven't seen SteamOS, but I would hope it's on the appliance end of the spectrum. Its problems will likely have more to do with GPU driver faults and the scarcity of OpenGL compatible games than anything directly arising from using a Linux-based OS.
Huh. Well, fair enough. I have no direct knowledge of Linux, just hearsay to go on. Still doesn't really make me any more interested in one though.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-14, 08:56 AM

Figures and/or some other type of proof please. Which are very hard to come by, since I know Steam doesn't release its sales figures, and I can't find any for GoG or GMG either. But, some things to consider:
1) EA at least has PC sales that are comparable to the other platforms. (http://techreport.com/news/25136/ea-financials-show-growing-pc-game-revenue)

Sales by numbers isn't that bad yet, but almost every AAA title is consolified. Either by being a bad port, or by "adopting to the console kiddies" (not my words) by making the games faster, and more action-y. Dragon Age 2, for example.

As for the OS:
Linux is NOT a pain to use. It USED to be, modern distributions are about as easy to install and get used to as Windows. Some are even easier (Nobody I know claim that Android phones are hard to use. Or OS X, which has it's roots in Linux).

Also, selling the box in different versions seems clever. They have promised that even the cheapest versions will handle all games in their catalog well and better ones will just improve graphics, basically.
But yes, a PC costs more than a console, but the hardware is also superior.

Since I enjoy gaming (but isn't obsessed by it) I tend to, for every generation (every 3-5 years or so) pay 9000 - 10 000 SEK on a PC*. What it is in dollars varies, of course. But that is about twice to three times the ammount as a top of the line console. I think it is worth it, not only beacuse I don't have to move over to the TV to game, but it can run games with better settings than a console when it is new, and it still can run next-gen console games (like now, the PS4 and XBone are both less powerful than my 2,5 year old gaming laptop) so I don't have to worry about upgrading.

*Last time I cheated though since I had my eyes on a 15 000 SEK gaming laptop from ASUS that I found out cost only the equivalent of 7 500 SEK at Best Buy, so when we were visiting my wife's mother in St Louis I bought it there, instead. Saving half the price makes the US keyboard worth it. :smalltongue::smallsmile:

factotum

2014-01-14, 11:21 AM

Or OS X, which has it's roots in Linux.

Just to correct you there, OS X is based on a combination of NeXTStep and BSD Unix sitting on top of the Mach kernel--there's no Linux code in it at all. Neither does it have any roots in Linux, since the Mach kernel and Unix both pre-date Linux by a goodly margin (Mach started development in 1985 and Unix has been around since the late 60s, whereas the first faltering steps of the Linux kernel came into being in 1991).

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-15, 03:56 AM

Just to correct you there, OS X is based on a combination of NeXTStep and BSD Unix sitting on top of the Mach kernel--there's no Linux code in it at all. Neither does it have any roots in Linux, since the Mach kernel and Unix both pre-date Linux by a goodly margin (Mach started development in 1985 and Unix has been around since the late 60s, whereas the first faltering steps of the Linux kernel came into being in 1991).

Fine. It's based in BSD Unix.
Not the same thing, but close.

Rodin

2014-01-15, 04:18 AM

The Steam OS is as user friendly and automatic as any Console OS.

Given the horror that is every console OS I have ever seen, this does not reassure me.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-15, 04:47 AM

Given the horror that is every console OS I have ever seen, this does not reassure me.

I haven't actually seen it, but if it is linux based it is probably much better than the others, which seems to be hopelessly outdated in their designs at the time of release...

Airk

2014-01-15, 09:55 AM

I haven't actually seen it, but if it is linux based it is probably much better than the others, which seems to be hopelessly outdated in their designs at the time of release...

Uh, and how does "Based on an OS that doesn't even ship with a GUI" equate to "not a hopelessly outdated design"?

I mean, this is the people who brought you/bring us the pretty-much-junk Steam client interface, for crying out loud. What makes you think they can design an interface for a whole OS that won't be utter garbage?

warty goblin

2014-01-15, 10:20 AM

Uh, and how does "Based on an OS that doesn't even ship with a GUI" equate to "not a hopelessly outdated design"?
I don't see the existence of a base Linux GUI as particularly relevant to final product usability.

I mean, this is the people who brought you/bring us the pretty-much-junk Steam client interface, for crying out loud. What makes you think they can design an interface for a whole OS that won't be utter garbage?
This however is right on the money as far as I'm concerned. The bit where they can't even get a download queue to behave itself does not fill me with confidence...

Airk

2014-01-15, 04:16 PM

I don't see the existence of a base Linux GUI as particularly relevant to final product usability.

Which is almost precisely my point. Saying "Oh no, it'll be WAY more usuable than other console OS's! After all, it's based on LINUX!" is like saying "Oh no, it'll be WAY more usuable than other console OS's! After all, it's programmed in C++!" These two facts have nothing to do with one another. Linux brings NOTHING to the table in terms of making the OS usable.

This however is right on the money as far as I'm concerned. The bit where they can't even get a download queue to behave itself does not fill me with confidence...

What problem do you have with the download queue? Mine just thinks that I have one item (dunno what!) perpetually downloading, so whenever I download something it's all "Downloading item 1 of 2!"

warty goblin

2014-01-15, 04:34 PM

Which is almost precisely my point. Saying "Oh no, it'll be WAY more usuable than other console OS's! After all, it's based on LINUX!" is like saying "Oh no, it'll be WAY more usuable than other console OS's! After all, it's programmed in C++!" These two facts have nothing to do with one another. Linux brings NOTHING to the table in terms of making the OS usable.

Although in general it's a kinda nice backend.

What problem do you have with the download queue? Mine just thinks that I have one item (dunno what!) perpetually downloading, so whenever I download something it's all "Downloading item 1 of 2!"
Mine has the adorable habit of reorganizing itself based on the whims of strange and terrible gods. It's not even when my internet hiccups, it just spontaneously moves stuff around. It particularly likes to do this when I want to actually play the game I just bought, so it decides now would be a great time to download a four gig patch for Company of Heroes II instead of the last two hundred megs of the thing I actually want to play.

It's also taken to simply pausing downloads for no discernible reason.

Mind, this is the least trouble I've had with Steam in years. Don't even get me started on offline mode. It's entirely behind my ongoing commitment to not give Valve any of my money. I'll buy from a third party and put up with their useless adware, but that's it.

Airk

2014-01-15, 04:53 PM

Although in general it's a kinda nice backend.

Sure, but the backend has about as much to do with the usability and 'feel' of the OS as the horsepower of the engine has to do with how comfortable the seats are in a car.

factotum

2014-01-15, 05:00 PM

It particularly likes to do this when I want to actually play the game I just bought, so it decides now would be a great time to download a four gig patch for Company of Heroes II instead of the last two hundred megs of the thing I actually want to play.

Why don't you just pause all the extraneous downloads until the one you actually want is finished, then? It's not like Steam can read your mind and determine that you want to play such-and-such a game, after all.

warty goblin

2014-01-15, 05:39 PM

Why don't you just pause all the extraneous downloads until the one you actually want is finished, then? It's not like Steam can read your mind and determine that you want to play such-and-such a game, after all.
Because pause doesn't work. The only way to get Steam to download one game, only one game, and nothing but that game is to disable auto-updates on every other game in the queue - and hope it doesn't add another update to the top of the queue. This is a non-queue, and would fail somebody the definition section of a CompSci 101 exam.

Naturally, disabling the queued updates renders all those games unplayable until I re-enable and complete all the updates. Because of the above-noted behavior, this needs to be done manually one game at a time. For a routine automatic process this sure requires a lot of manual intervention.

To recap: I have a patch queue that doesn't work embedded in an autopatching game client that can't be allowed to autopatch and which prohibits me from playing games. Let's ponder that one for a moment, shall we?

OK, pondering done. This isn't good software. This isn't decent software. This is goddamn embarrassing software.

Ailurus

2014-01-15, 06:56 PM

Mind, this is the least trouble I've had with Steam in years. Don't even get me started on offline mode. It's entirely behind my ongoing commitment to not give Valve any of my money. I'll buy from a third party and put up with their useless adware, but that's it.

The offline mode is perfectly fine. Years ago it had some issues, but its perfectly fine now. I'll say it a third time - perfectly fine. It does exactly what its advertised to do, and then some, and I'm saying that as someone who uses steam offline mode more than 99.9999% of steam's user base (using it 22-23 hrs/day (if not more) on average, 365 days/year). Total problems I had with it was 1-2 days a year or so ago when it was acting up. That's it.

Lets take an actual look at steam's offline functionality, all these tests done right now.

Steam is online and connected. I disable my internet connection. Can I still run all my games? yes. Leaving my internet connection dead, I exit steam and restart it. Connection error, as expected, with a handy "start in offline mode" button. I hit that and steam starts up in offline mode and I can still play all my games. What else does an offline mode need to do? It handles dropping connections fine, it handles starting w/o an internet connection fine, and you can even drop connection mid-way through a download and have it pick up again when you go back online with no ill effects (maybe exiting the program will cause issues while offline and mid-download, didn't test that one).

There may or may not be an upper limit in the amount of time you can stay in offline mode. I've heard tell that there may be a 2-weekish upper limit on it, but Valve has repeatedly said they're working on fixing that so it can be indefinite. And even then, there's workarounds online for getting around the possible time limit if you're really concerned about that.
(edit - regarding this timeout issue, official response from Valve, back in November of this year.

source (http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/1/864969953572102601/#c864969953730401285)
EDITED Nov 4 2013 - holy thread necro. Looks like Kotaku decided to link to this post from six months ago, and every game blog has copy-pasted it. The "two week" timeout issue has been fixed for months now, along with several other bugs. We're still working on improvements, and you might catch them if you read the patch notes carefully, but we don't bother to post on the forums every time we fix something (maybe out of fear that it will get posted as front-page news six months later?).
)

So what's the big deal? Offline mode is perfectly functional and viable for me, and if you're having major issues with it I'd say either contact Steam's tech support or check your own machine, because the problem is NOT with the client.

As for queues, it is slightly annoying how they have implement a stack instead of a queue for it. But the pause buttons do work. They can get a little laggy if the server's under heavy usage, but give them a few seconds to respond and they do (three downloads in the stack for testing right now, and I can pause and resume them at will with no issues at all, ~2 second response time on the pause buttons and another 5 seconds or so for the downloads to respond once I tell them to start.)

Also, the other thing to look at is if you have tons of updates that steam wants to do, why not just let it do them finish it overnight or something? (unless you're on a metered internet connection, but even then you can finish off a couple downloads per month, probably). Its not like Steam is constantly pushing out updates every week or two for games (well, except for (according to rumors, at least) TF2 and stuff).

Is steam perfect? No. Would I prefer if Steam handled distribution like GoG? yes. Does steam have occasional hiccups (especially during sales when its servers get pounded)? yes. Is steam perfectly functional? Also Yes.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-01-15, 07:48 PM

If Steam changed the download queue so that it would go in the order the downloads are shown, or from smallest download to biggest download (barring whichever one you set to download if you manually choose one), that would work a lot better.

But that's really my only problem with Steam. Never had a problem with offline mode. A thing that would be nice is the ability to re-arrange your games, but since the default is alphabetical order it's fine.

Forbiddenwar

2014-01-15, 11:46 PM

Would I prefer if Steam handled distribution like GoG? yes.

I hope not, GoG is a freaking mess.:smallwink:

In all seriousness I have more problems with Gog Downloading system rather than Steams. As far as I can tell, GoG's downloader is not compatible with my system (or my ISP is convinced it's an illegal torrent and flat out blocks it.) Which means I have to download the entire install file in one sitting, which is fine when it's an old game of a few megabytes. But not when it's the Witcher at 8 gigs. Free or not, I'm never downloading that game from GOG. I'd rather pay Steam $5 for it.

My point is yes, some people have problems with Steam. Some people cannot use GoG. Thank goodness both exist so we have options. If GoG was making a dedicated gaming machine, I'd probably be the one saying "they can't get a 15 year old game to run on my 3 year old computer nor can they get their download system to work right, why on earth would I trust them with building an operating system?"
But then I would want reserve my judgemnt until I saw the system in action. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoimbOUe1rA)

warty goblin

2014-01-16, 12:16 AM

I hope not, GoG is a freaking mess.:smallwink:

In all seriousness I have more problems with Gog Downloading system rather than Steams. As far as I can tell, GoG's downloader is not compatible with my system (or my ISP is convinced it's an illegal torrent and flat out blocks it.) Which means I have to download the entire install file in one sitting, which is fine when it's an old game of a few megabytes. But not when it's the Witcher at 8 gigs. Free or not, I'm never downloading that game from GOG. I'd rather pay Steam $5 for it.

The largest file GoG ever makes you download is two gigs. The Witcher comes in a couple of 2 gig pieces, with another little file you run as the installer that joins 'em all up. All the downloader does is automatically start the next chunk whenever the previous one finishes up, that's about it.

GamersGate is arguably even better. You just download a little file that acts as the download manager/decrypter for each game. Run that, it allows a person to pause, resume, whatever.

(The thing I really like about GoG or GamersGate: I get the actual install files. I can easily download things on campus where I have decent bandwidth, then move them to my gaming computer. It's basically buying a CD that I download instead of a weird service thing.)

factotum

2014-01-16, 02:51 AM

Because pause doesn't work. The only way to get Steam to download one game, only one game, and nothing but that game is to disable auto-updates on every other game in the queue - and hope it doesn't add another update to the top of the queue.

All I can say is, it's never done that for me. If I manually pause an update it stops and then picks whatever it chooses next in the queue to do--and I've done this on numerous occasions, so it's not like it's something that's worked once and never again. On occasions I've even told it to pause everything it's updating because I need my Internet bandwidth for something else, and it works fine then too.

Avilan the Grey

2014-01-16, 09:14 AM

Is steam perfect? No. Would I prefer if Steam handled distribution like GoG? yes. Does steam have occasional hiccups (especially during sales when its servers get pounded)? yes. Is steam perfectly functional? Also Yes.

I don't use GOG since it doesn't have auto-updates, no subscription to mods or anything else that actual online distribution benefits from. GOG is basically just a place to store your DVD install files.

Grif

2014-01-16, 09:43 AM

(The thing I really like about GoG or GamersGate: I get the actual install files. I can easily download things on campus where I have decent bandwidth, then move them to my gaming computer. It's basically buying a CD that I download instead of a weird service thing.)

You can basically save your entire steamapp folder and Steam will detect it and adjust its download accordingly. (basically, it acts as a preload.)

Airk

2014-01-16, 09:44 AM

But that's really my only problem with Steam. Never had a problem with offline mode. A thing that would be nice is the ability to re-arrange your games, but since the default is alphabetical order it's fine.

I had problem with the offline mode years ago, but haven't had a need to mess with it since. My issues with Steam are:

A) It seems to update an awful lot.
B) The interface is fundamentally poo. It's sluggish and awkward.
B.1) The layout of what is where is awful. I'd like to recommend a game? Great. Not in any of the menus, nor in any obvious places.
B.2) The store functionality is utter crap - you're better off loading a web browser and navigating to their storefront than actually trying to use the client to do anything related to purchasing.
B.3) Discoverability is incredible terrible - even using the webbased storefront to eliminate the performance issues of trying to use the client. Search functionality is crap. Games appear to have 'tags' but you can't only search for one tag at a time, and there's no exclusion functionality. For something that's basically a STORE, it sure is hard for me to find anything unless I either know the exact name of what I want, or it's list on the front page.

The various B-points all point to Valve not being able to design an interface to save their lives.

Whoracle

2014-01-16, 02:47 PM

While I also think steam has a crappy interface, the Big Picture Mode is pretty decent, which is what you'll be using on the TV, I guess.

warty goblin

2014-01-16, 03:10 PM

I haven't had trouble with Offline mode recently. Two years ago however it was a right mess when I didn't have internet for my gaming PC for a couple months. Couldn't play anything, couldn't even log into Steam to get it to stop running at startup. Completely worthless. That summer I also went without internet, and although I did configure Offline mode correctly that time, by the end of three months a large number of the games I had installed through Steam weren't working anymore.

Rodin

2014-01-16, 04:39 PM

I had problem with the offline mode years ago, but haven't had a need to mess with it since. My issues with Steam are:

A) It seems to update an awful lot.
B) The interface is fundamentally poo. It's sluggish and awkward.
B.1) The layout of what is where is awful. I'd like to recommend a game? Great. Not in any of the menus, nor in any obvious places.
B.2) The store functionality is utter crap - you're better off loading a web browser and navigating to their storefront than actually trying to use the client to do anything related to purchasing.
B.3) Discoverability is incredible terrible - even using the webbased storefront to eliminate the performance issues of trying to use the client. Search functionality is crap. Games appear to have 'tags' but you can't only search for one tag at a time, and there's no exclusion functionality. For something that's basically a STORE, it sure is hard for me to find anything unless I either know the exact name of what I want, or it's list on the front page.

The various B-points all point to Valve not being able to design an interface to save their lives.

Sums up my fundamental problems with Steam quite nicely.

The biggest recent one is so-called "Early Access games", AKA "paid Alpha".

If I wanted to do that, I'd use Kickstarter. If I'm on Steam, I want finished games, plzkthx.

And the worst thing is, I'll see Early Access games I'm interested in...but they won't actually be ready for months, if not years. Will Steam put them back up again when they complete? I can't recall ever seeing any that got put back on the front page.

It's like Steam is taunting you with games.

As a digital download platform, Steam is great. I haven't seen anyone else that comes close. In terms of an actual store-front, they could seriously do with some help on how to personalize content.