How is this much different than the Ouya idea? Other than coming from Valve and being backed by Steam.
How is this much different than the Ouya idea? Other than coming from Valve and being backed by Steam.
It would be cooler if SteamOS could be built straight into a TV rather than going from TV > SteamBox w/ SteamOS > PC with Steam
Maybe, if the TV did a decent job of implementing the hardware required.
Netflix built into the TV is a pretty cool concept but good lord you need some patience because that interface is SLOW (at least on the Samsung TVs I've used).
In that sense, it already is locked down. You can't take a game purchased through steam and move the license over to the microsoft app store, or the apple app store, or your xbox.
Or are you talking about only allowing SteamOS to run on certain hardware configs from certain vendors? If so, I doubt that will happen because it doesn't matter. Valve (and for that matter, microsoft and Sony) are not making money off of the hardware nor have anything to gain by forcing you to a certain setup. They want to make money off of the content licenses.
Yeah, I guess I just don't see the big deal. It doesn't seem a whole lot different than the Steam "big picture" thing they already did. You'd still need the TV, plus an HTPC or "SteamBox" - now with SteamOS on it, plus a gaming PC with Steam: all networked together and all in use at once.
I am talking about requiring Steambox and the Steam OS to play steam games, or at least that they might make valve exclusive games that would require Steambox to play.
The difference now is that yes, Steam is required to play steam games, but I am not required to purchase any separate hardware or OS. They play seamlessly on my PC.
You connect a blu-ray player to the TV using HDMI. You connect the monitor to the computer using the computer-monitor cord-thingey. Its different right? I think its a USB port.
Oh, wait, you're telling me that I can hook up my laptop to the TV with the same connector as the blu-ray player? Wow, thats neat. Can you show me where the HDMI plug is on my windows XP laptop? It has a lot of viruses so I hope the viruses don't go to the TV.
I'm with you. Its easy and it hurts your brain to think that people don't get this, but they really don't. Technology is dominated by the lowest common denominator now. Theres a reason that HTPCs never sold, but Apple TVs and Roku boxes do.
So yeah, it is pretty easy to connect a gaming PC to the TV, but I still think thats a very small segment of the market that will do that, and Valve is trying to think big.
One thing that many people aren't really mentioning is that even if Steam was trying to compete in the same market as the consoles, it is still a PC which would mean all the ports may or may not come to it and/or would be 6months-year or more down the road and/or bad w/o modding etc.
So what you end up with is a system that gets games later if at all, may not work correctly w/o patching that may or may not even come and/or mods which would put a bad taste in many non-pc gamers mouths and send them right back to their consoles.
Games that are PC only are not usually suited to TV gaming (due to small details etc) so you can't really even say PC exclusives would drive it.
So..again, I do not think that is Steams ultimate goal here...I think it is ultimately just an expansion of the market.
I think that was what sparked the concept, seeing Microsoft start to move towards the walled garden model with Win 8. That initiative will ultimately fail anyway, but regardless, at some point they must have taken a look around, and saw that the gaping hole in the market. Everyone focused on building up walls around their little garden, and the one OS that's legitimately taking the world by storm is android.
Microsoft claims to have sold 100 million Windows 8 licenses in roughly a year, but android shipped on 480 million smartphones last year. A bit of a shaky comparison for sure, but android is BY FAR the fastest selling OS right now. And it's an open, free platform that's completely dominating it's competition.
So I'm sure valve took a step back from their fear of microsoft shutting the doors on them and noticed the opening in the market in the living room for something that's more open and configurable than the traditional consoles, more capable than a bluray player or media streamer, and can appeal to the dozens of hardware manufacturers that are being snubbed by MS with Win8, Surface and Xbox, as well as all the game publishers that don't want to cede all their control to the whims of the "big three".
They needed to spend those billions to support the hardware design, taking a loss on hardware sales to build the install base, tons of red ringed xboxes, etc. I don't see valve's own "steambox" as anything more than a proof of concept, I get the impression that once it's off the ground they'll cease to make hardware. All they'll need to support is the OS and the storefront, and that's a much smaller task. HP, Asus and the like will need to bear the burden of console design, Intel/AMD/Nvidia will handle the internals, publishers will handle the games. They're just the ones bringing it all together, not trying to run the entire show on their own.
No no, this isn't about making Linux a gaming platform. This is about what hoorah and I said, Valve securing their future against potential lock-in from Apple, Google, and most importantly Microsoft. They can't tie their multi-billion dollar business to another company's decisions.
Sadly agreed there. Microsoft had Xboxs in millions of homes and couldn't touch the living room TV as a main source of content until netflix came along. When netflix DID come along, MS was in a better spot than anyone else (aside from WII or PS3) because their console was already there.
Will Valve succeed next to the big 3? I don't know. I would say no, but then again, when Steam first came out no one thought it would succeed.
The big three consoles are definitely the gorillas in the market, but what happens when some kid wants a game system for his birthday to play Call of Duty and his parents say "Hmm, look at that. This steam thing looks like it will work and all of the games are cheaper on it. We'll get him that".
Its not a guaranteed key to success, but its not a bad shot if you're valve.
Did you really just compare a phone/tablet OS to PC OS??? Not sure what the point of that was. It's a different market. That's why Chrome exists.. The rest of the post makes me scratch my head. If it's in the living room it's a direct competitor to the consoles. There's a reason there few players in that market, it's very cut throat, and takes a lot of people involved to make a platform work. If it was just about snubbed manufactures Samsung would already be there with their version of the PS/Xbox hybrid.
A supposed Valve employee spills the beans on what to expect this week, and it sounds legit.A supposed Valve Software employee has jumped on popular site 4chan to spill the beans on what the company plans to reveal on Wednesday and Friday. Posting only as Anonymous, he also discusses why Valve chose to use Linux as the foundation, dishes out a few insults towards Microsoft, and talks about the platform's streaming feature. But take all of this with a grain of salt: it's easy to write fiction while under the anonymous umbrella.
For starters, as expected, Valve will supposedly reveal a reference design on Wednesday, not a complete out-of-the-box console. This design will be highly upgradable by the end user to that customers aren't locked into one hardware set for a near decade. Xi3 Corp could still be one of these partners, and maybe even Zotac and a few other barebones Mini PC providers, but the unnamed source indicates that the ideal form factor may not be quite that small.
"It will support all hardware. All CPUs, all GPUs -- from three generations ago at the oldest for Nvidia, two for AMD and all going forward," the unnamed employee claims. "The release design, however, will have a Nvidia GPU and an AMD CPU. It will use regular PC parts, however, there will be a certification program. We have to guarantee some sort of baseline performance – if there's analog out, then the audio must not crackle, PSUs that are small won't burn your house down, small cases without retarded branding, low latency wireless networking, etc. You are free to build an 800 pound glowing monstrosity if you wish, and it'll work, but that's not really what we want you to do. There will also be prebuilt and bundled solutions."
So that's part two of the reveal: a certification program for hardware builders looking to provide full solutions, and a reference design for the ideal "Steam Box". As revealed on Monday, Valve is also releasing the SteamOS platform not only for Valve partners for creating a complete package, but for PC gamers wanting to build their own Steam Box. He said that the reference design doesn't use Intel because the company wanted to be paid for its involvement while Valve in turn would be marketing Intel's hardware for free.
"[Nvidia] reached out to us and have been extremely cooperative," the employee said. "They even let us use their streaming tech – the one they showcase on the Shield (which is getting Steam integration, btw, as are all Tegra devices), even though we told them it would have to work on AMD cards. If you were wondering what Nvidia was unveiling soon that wasn't a video card, this is it. They're the first choice for Steam Box hardware. (We even set it up so that it rains on AMD's video card announcement, kek). Expect extremely good Linux drivers from them over the next few months. AMD is… hesitant to comment."
That's it for Wednesday. On Friday Valve will not reveal new Steam peripherals, but the Source 2 game engine. The employee said it won't have a line of DirectX in it (meaning it presumably supports only OpenGL), but will work on Linux, Windows and OS X – possibly even the PlayStation 4 in the future. There will also be a game possibly using this engine that will be bundled with Nvidia cards and redeemed on Steam Boxes.
The update also goes into how Linux is faster than a Windows platform, and how Microsoft is extremely lazy and greedy. We've already heard Gabe Newell thrash the Windows 8 platform, so it's no surprise hearing similar talk from supposed employees. Windows is the real cancer killing PC gaming, not consoles, he claims.
Naturally take all of the new Valve talk as simply rumor until Valve dishes out the official news on Wednesday and Friday. Cross your fingers the new Source 2 game is Half-Life 3!
I bring up android only to demonstrate that a free, open platform, that's customized for a specific purpose and device is VERY enticing to hardware manufacturers.
I'm in agreement that it's in direct competition with the consoles, but you have to look at the bigger picture. It's not just about snubbed manufacturers, or just about publishers, or just about valve's ambitions....it's all of them, at the same time. Valve is in a unique position to be able to pull this off. They're basically the standard bearer for an organized, but relatively open game publishing platform. They have relations with all the publishers, so they can get a few to at least try. That gets nvidia and AMD's attention, because they see the potential for hardware sales. Then ASUS and HP see a platform that has growing support, so they give it a shot too. You can actually see all the elements coming together for a successful platform, because valve is uniquely situated to fill that role. A ton of open-ish platforms have been built on broad coalitions like this - blu-ray, HDMI, wifi....open specs and platforms eventually take over from the proprietary, it's just a matter of time. And the time for gaming to make that move may have finally come.
It's not that I disagree with you on this post as I just see it a bit differently. The biggest thing I keep looking at is the consumer, the only guy in the food chain that matters. You would need something new and awesome to convince them to spend any money on it at all. Without that you won't get a ASUS or HP or anyone to use it. All those platforms you pointed out all brought new and interesting things to the table. The SteamOS and possible Steam console haven't shown anything (I happily concede yet, there's still a really good chance they will soon.) that would make the end user go "I really want that". As I've pointed out in many other posts, I totally get and agree with why Valve wants it, I just don't get why our normal consumer (not the guy that really hates MS, because most consumers wouldn't know enough to have an issue with them) would buy it. I've asked a lot about why because I honestly wouldn't mind it working. I live and breath Linux at work and would love to see it more spread out. That doesn't mean I want to lose any functionality thought.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/steamos-steam-box-reference-design-source-2-half-life-3,24388.html
Not sure how reputable this is or if someone else already posted it.
here is the original text in it's entirety:
One thing that many people aren't really mentioning is that even if Steam was trying to compete in the same market as the consoles, it is still a PC which would mean all the ports may or may not come to it and/or would be 6months-year or more down the road and/or bad w/o modding etc.
So what you end up with is a system that gets games later if at all, may not work correctly w/o patching that may or may not even come and/or mods which would put a bad taste in many non-pc gamers mouths and send them right back to their consoles.
Games that are PC only are not usually suited to TV gaming (due to small details etc) so you can't really even say PC exclusives would drive it.
So..again, I do not think that is Steams ultimate goal here...I think it is ultimately just an expansion of the market.