Be Right Back, Uninstalling

Confirmed.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Valve-Conf...41938.html

Isn't that something. The future cometh?

Looking forward to this.  Any idea on a release date?

OS or hardware, would not touch with 10ft pole, just like I will never touch chrome or a google desktop OS.

As loose as steam's DRM is, its still very unsettling for a desktop OS level. Windows 7 and linux distros have a comfortable level and valve would have to do a lot and I mean _alot_ to convince me that this would be worth it.

Why buy valve hardware when I should just be building my own box?

(01-11-2013, 03:34 PM)Caffeine link Wrote: [ -> ]OS or hardware, would not touch with 10ft pole, just like I will never touch chrome or a google desktop OS.

As loose as steam's DRM is, its still very unsettling for a desktop OS level. Windows 7 and linux distros have a comfortable level and valve would have to do a lot and I mean _alot_ to convince me that this would be worth it.

Why buy valve hardware when I should just be building my own box?

You say that now, until the $199 box goes on sale for $45 because Valve.

Microsoft is going the way of Apple -- locking their software to UEFI layer, and prohibiting downgrades arbitrarily. Most Win8 machines will not accept a Win7 install. Furthermore, Windows 8 does not support all the apps that Windows 7 does. I think Windows 9 will be even more different (dare I say 'revolutionary') and support fewer legacy apps. THen we'd be forced to buy our apps all over again. Where before it was enough to make a Windows compatible game, it seems now you must write a Windows compliant game to play ball. Release on Linux, cry the FSF patriots; but as the market stands now, Linux is for people who want to constantly tinker with their PC -- and most people do not want to fuck with it that much. Unless there is a ready-made Linux computer at a fixed price point that you can plug in turn on and run Linux, that move away from both MS and Apple computing platforms would narrow your market. So Almighty Gabe has spoken: give the gamers a computerbox alternative to Windows 9 or Mac 11.

(01-11-2013, 03:34 PM)Caffeine link Wrote: [ -> ]OS or hardware, would not touch with 10ft pole, just like I will never touch chrome or a google desktop OS.

As loose as steam's DRM is, its still very unsettling for a desktop OS level. Windows 7 and linux distros have a comfortable level and valve would have to do a lot and I mean _alot_ to convince me that this would be worth it.

Why buy valve hardware when I should just be building my own box?

That's kind of how I feel about it. I'm interested to see where it goes though.

(01-11-2013, 06:03 PM)Karth link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=Caffeine link=topic=6712.msg260101#msg260101 date=1357936467]
OS or hardware, would not touch with 10ft pole, just like I will never touch chrome or a google desktop OS.

As loose as steam's DRM is, its still very unsettling for a desktop OS level. Windows 7 and linux distros have a comfortable level and valve would have to do a lot and I mean _alot_ to convince me that this would be worth it.

Why buy valve hardware when I should just be building my own box?

That's kind of how I feel about it. I'm interested to see where it goes though.
[/quote]

Well it's not like you're the intended audience. Steam box is not for people who are capable of building their own computers. It's an attempt to bring the ease of setting up and using a console to PC gaming. Just remember: The Steam box is for casuals, and not in a bad way.

(01-11-2013, 06:57 PM)Eschatos link Wrote: [ -> ]Just remember: The Steam box is for casuals, and not in a bad way.

What's the difference between a steambox and an xbox360 and a PC? It seems to be mostly the walled garden designating which games are approved and which are not.

With all of the supposed power of the PS3 hardware, were there any games that truly took advantage of it to the extend that they couldn't run on other systems?

In my view, this isn't 20 years ago when a SuperFX chip or a DSP chip could deliver an unique game experience unavailable on other platforms.

If the steambox forces SOE and MS and Nintendo into the business of peripherals (special controllers like Kinect, etc) and software licensers (for all those exclusives) that will run on generic PC-based consoles , I'd be cool with that. Really, what do MS, SOE, and Nintendo have to offer besides franchise SOFTWARE titles and different controllers? They might all make more margin if they didn't have to design, build, and sell the consoles at a low or negative margin.

Hope they still let you use mouse & keyboard :u

[spoiler]this is why we cant have anything pretty[/spoiler]

this thread went off topic quickly.

this thread is confusing.







that's what i meant to say.

(01-24-2013, 03:33 AM)Vandamdad link Wrote: [ -> ]this thread is confusing.

Not really.

tl:dr: If you accept that all game platforms continually expand to accommodate more simultaneous players, and you accept that the Internet is the best way to connect multiple players and if you accept that PC architecture (x86) offers the lowest cost overheat to best connect to the Internet, then this thread makes sense.


____________________________________________________________________________

Since the dawn of video games, people have sought ways to add more players to the platform.

First, the arcades. When I started hustling for quarters at the beach so I could play Donkey Kong, Dig-Dug, or Q-Bert, multi-player meant 1 joystick and taking turns. Joust!, holy fuck when I first saw Joust! had 2 sticks! Gauntlet was a huge hit with it's 4 player simultanious mode (heck, each class even had their own coin slot).

Most consoles were 2 player affairs (atari paddles excepted), and when SNES got the 5-player adapter and Genesis had the 4-player adapter, that was huge. Bill Walsh 92. Madden 93. NHL 93? (Fucking Roenick was death from above at the blue line).

Now, all consoles have an online component where you can play with more than 4 players.


****
People loved doom, people loved duke, but ever since quakematch we've all been loving the multiplayer FPSes.  The standard by which many FPS releases is measured is "how many simultaneous players does it support?" Ask Caffeine and At0m and all the Planetside 1 beta players why they loved the game so much. My bet they would say it's not the graphics, it's not the physics, it's not the gameplay mechanics. It's how cool and complex a game can get when you add more skilled/crazy/drunken people to it at once. See also: Minecraft.

Oh, and since we are speaking of simultaneous players, I can't not mention MMOs. A whole fucking new genre thanks to UO and Everquest, whose devotees are practically cultlike. How big has WoW been for how long? WoW is the fucking soap opera of our generation. Everyone has played it at one season or another, and it keeps going, season (release) after season.

Now, how many consoles have enabled MMO play on the level with PC gamers?

Let's not forget portables, which went from solo-player devices to multiplayer via wireless. And, but, also: mobile phones and ipads.

*****************

Today, people want to be able to play with their friends. Regardless of platform. Give me one good reason why WII, PS3, and Xbox360 (and PC) owners couldn't play Rock Band together? There is none, except for corporate greed.

So, at this point, any game platform has to be able to provide multiplayer interaction over the internet. And not only the multiplayer levels of today, but scale to the number of supported players per server over the next several years.


********************
Internet Connectivity is now a requirement for any game platform.

And PC architecture has the lowest cost structure of any internet-based platform with good display output.

So, there is a point where PCs and any game console will converge (and, later, as Moore's law keeps kicking, portables, and mobile phones/devices/pads).


Thus, all we are doing here is speculating as to when and on what platforms it will happen.

(01-24-2013, 07:56 PM)rumsfald link Wrote: [ -> ]Thus, all we are doing here is speculating as to when and on what platforms it will happen.

To add to this, it doesn't seem to make business sense to me. Valve isn't in the hardware business, its not their strength. To be fair, it was not Microsoft's either and while I wouldn't call their foray a failure, it certainly isn't the success that Nintendo or Sony have had over time (and for every xbox in their portfolio there's a ZUN)

Valve pretty much has defacto control over the PC "Platform" now, why create a closed system?

There's something to be said for making a 'simple plug and play' PC for gamers, but isn't that pretty much what a console is these days? And the tech-heads or more serious gamers that want more functionality and flexibility with their rigs build/buy gaming PCs.

As much as I trust valve with steam as a platform, I would not trust them with my whole OS, nor for that matter would I trust google (whose entire profit is derived from knowing information about you).

What about mods?
What about games not on steam?
What about peripherals?
What about non-game software?
What about fixing/updatability?

This thread I'd say is right on track discussing the merits or flaws of valve introducing a platform like this.

doesn't that new nvidia tegra device also include steam support?

(01-25-2013, 10:02 AM)Caffeine link Wrote: [ -> ]Valve pretty much has defacto control over the PC "Platform" now, why create a closed system?

As Sony, MS, and Nintendo continue to compete with one-another, they have three fronts of attack.


1) pretty -who has the best graphics?
2) price - who can be be cheapest?
3) library - who has the richest developer ecosystem?
4) exclusives - who has what no-one else have? This can be either software (franchises like HALO) or hardware (interface novelties like Kinect)


GabeN, perched in his CEO chair knitted with the fabric of the hats of his enemies strokes his chin and assesses how Valve compares to the sitrep (someone needs to draw that).

1) pretty: for many years, PC games have been the pinnacle of pretty. Sure, sometimes a console would have a super pretty exclusive that PC gamers didn't have (Shadow of the Colossus), but PCs always push more pixels.

2) price: If
[All devices must connect to the internet]
and
[All devices must have fancy graphicx]
then the only way to decrease the cost of manufacturing is
[use commodity PC parts (mobos, chips, graphics, memory and not stupid shit that hardly gets used like Cell processors].

Super FX and the Emotion Engine are things of the past. The more Sony, MS, and Nintendo use commodity parts to gain an edge on margin, the more Valve will have the edge of better hardware (because Valve PC users can upgrade the parts that XBOX users cannot).


3) library: as more all platforms use commodity parts, the cost and difficulty of porting cross-platforms decreases. Result: leveling of library advantage. Steam has made great progress in the last year in getting it's library to look more and more like the xbox library.

4) exclusives:
- Hardware
--PCs generally have the best graphics component at any point in time
--Most every device ever invented has been hacked to work with a PC (wii remote, kinect, ETC)
--PCs have keyboard and mouse, which is a superior way to play many genres of games

Software
--as more people use commodity hardware, the the cost of porting to another platform go down. At that point, the only thing that exclusives bring to the party is erased at the moment the opportunity cost eclipses their value. When the bean counters start looking at the revenue from exclusives and saying "yeah, but if we released this on the other 3 platforms we'd triple our sales of HALO. Is the amount of new XBOX owners that bought just to have HALO greater than that number?

--has anyone crunched the numbers to see if MMOs are the greatest exclusive ever? If you added the sales of UO, EQ, EQ2, WOW, etc together and compare them to the Mario series or the Zelda series or Metroid and/or all of them combined?

(01-25-2013, 10:02 AM)Caffeine link Wrote: [ -> ]What about mods?

I could see valve pursuing a 2 tier strategy with steam games. a) those games that work on a steambox and for the more demanding games b.) those that require a PC

(01-25-2013, 10:02 AM)Caffeine link Wrote: [ -> ]What about games not on steam?

The number of games I have bought on steam in the last 4 years far eclipses the number of games I have not bought on steam (that includes any platforms, Gamefly subscription, etc).  That Origin shit is a dumb-ass move by EA, too little, too late. People only put up with that because they have popular titles. At least SOE wasn't that dumb and put PS2 on steam.

(01-25-2013, 06:57 PM)rumsfald link Wrote: [ -> ]TL: DID READ

Interesting insight, but when you see a game like Star Citizen attempting to prove the PC Market having a high profit margin for those willing to pay, and doing so (literally 7 fold). It definitely proves the PC market to be a very powerful one. Also I know a number of people who have, and absolutely love their OnLive accounds and/or devices. Basically, console exclusive (especially specific console exclusive) is pretty much pointless nowadays. Unless you have a hugely massive title (Like Halo), then you're not going to make anywhere near as much money. The only benefit, for developers, is that it's easier to provide support on the isolated hardware of a console (especially if it's only one). Playstation 3 is still technically a Linux, XBox 360 is still a modified version of Windows 2000, the Wii and WiiU are still linux based operating systems built off of the GameCube's basis.
But from a developer's standpoint, if you develop for one console platform exclusively you only have to worry about stability and maintenance on that one platform, you know the hardware, you know what can work and what can't. When it comes to the PC Market, you are playing a guessing game more often than not.

When I was working with InterWave we were debating a number of engines at the time, Unreal 3, Source, Unity, etc. And we decided Source, the reason we decided Source, despite Unity and Unreal 3 having newer and better graphics, was the fact that Source CAN be pretty, if you put work into it (which was done, Nuclear Dawn is pretty, especially for Source, and very very few publications or web sites, despite liking it or not have disagreed that it is pretty), also, it's been around long enough that it's hard to find a computer anymore that CAN'T run it. So you have a larger market share. And lastly it was what our developers had the most experience with.

To go back to Star Citizen, it's release date slate is 2014. It is being built on CryEngine 3, by that time, it will be a more stable and polished engine than it is now. And will more than likely run on more computers that are capable of running it right now. At least, on the overall market.

All of these things are things to be considered when developing something for the market. I have a game design concept that a few of you have seen I intend to build with the Unreal Engine (as of right now). But that could change. Just depends on the market.

(01-24-2013, 07:56 PM)rumsfald link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=Vandamdad link=topic=6712.msg260759#msg260759 date=1359016401]
this thread is confusing.

Not really.

tl:dr: If you accept that all game platforms continually expand to accommodate more simultaneous players, and you accept that the Internet is the best way to connect multiple players and if you accept that PC architecture (x86) offers the lowest cost overheat to best connect to the Internet, then this thread makes sense.

[/quote]

wall of text. i did read and appreciate your thoughts on this broad topic.

my comments were brief in order to satire the thread. the expanded thought was that this thread suffers from an identity crisis. OP Kor makes a post asking for discussion on the steambox which degraded by the 2nd post into Google conspiracy, then MS vs Apple, SNES , multiplayer, and a roadmap for game development.

the satire was supposed to point out this communities terrible lack of ability to stay on topic

speaking of which:
[On topic] Steambox will be valves foot in your living room to sell you casual gaming

unless apple makes a set-top box that plays iphone games vandam, then the steam box is DOA