I don't get why people are all hung up on dpads and analog joysticks. I'm sure they've tried this idea out with at least a few people before revealing it to the public. I'm willing to bet it works pretty decently.
Although the weird concave center is kinda strange...
The weird touchpad thing might work instead of analog stick, sure, but no d-pad is no d-pad, I don't think there's excuse for a missing feature.
I'm pretty sure they put in some sort of directional button pressing feature on it, like click the button near the top could do something different from clicking it near the bottom. I mean, this is Valve we're talking about. They've thought of this.
I don't get why people are all hung up on dpads and analog joysticks. I'm sure they've tried this idea out with at least a few people before revealing it to the public. I'm willing to bet it works pretty decently.
Although the weird concave center is kinda strange...
The weird touchpad thing might work instead of analog stick, sure, but no d-pad is no d-pad, I don't think there's excuse for a missing feature.
How often are you using dpads? Because I literally never do for anything that is not some auxiliary function that could be put on the touch pad. I could understand using it for a fighting game but if you're serious about fighting games at all I assume you have a fight stick. Also a missing dpad is only a "missing feature" because you expect it to be there. They didn't advertise that it would have it ever.
Any time I play nes game, any time I play snes game, almost every time I play any 2d platformer. I use d-pad a lot and good d-pad is really important feature for me and thus a controller that lacks one is worthless in my eyes.
Any time I play nes game, any time I play snes game, almost every time I play any 2d platformer. I use d-pad a lot and good d-pad is really important feature for me and thus a controller that lacks one is worthless in my eyes.
I guess my next question is are you playing these on the PC and if so what current controller are you using to do so?
The reason I ask is because the 360 dpad is awful and functions more as a analog stick disguised as a dpad than being an actual dpad. It just seems strange that you would resort to using the 360 dpad as opposed to just using the sticks.
Either way the controller is trying to accommodate games that aren't very playable on controllers currently. Otherwise the answer is probably just use whatever you are currently using i.e. 2d platforming control has already been solved.
The reason I ask is because the 360 dpad is awful and functions more as a analog stick disguised as a dpad than being an actual dpad. It just seems strange that you would resort to using the 360 dpad as opposed to just using the sticks.
Either way the controller is trying to accommodate games that aren't very playable on controllers currently. Otherwise the answer is probably just use whatever you are currently using i.e. 2d platforming control has already been solved.
I have the "pro" controller on xbox, where the d-pad is still not optimal but at least usable. And your second point is just the thing that I meant when I said that they might have had wrong focus on that thing. I'm not sure if trying to make a controller that one uses instead of mouse and keyboard on games that are optimal with mouse and keyboard is a good idea. Maybe it works, but I remain skeptical.
Understandable, but if people want to play a FPS on their couch on a... Steam Machine... then usually a mouse and keyboard would be cumbersome. It's uses are selective to be sure but for current gen games of all kinds it could be ideal.
I think the best part about this? It has all the "PC MASTER RACE" types going mental for a console. Then realizing they're going mental for a console. And then inventing new and wonderful definitions of "Computer" to try and exclude previous consoles, but include the steambox. The mental gymnastics just to keep that feeling of superiority are astounding.
I think the best part about this? It has all the "PC MASTER RACE" types going mental for a console. Then realizing they're going mental for a console. And then inventing new and wonderful definitions of "Computer" to try and exclude previous consoles, but include the steambox. The mental gymnastics just to keep that feeling of superiority are astounding.
When you consider that both PS4 and Xbone are moving away from proprietary CPUs and towards x86-64 well... (They are still custom CPUs but you get the point)
I guess I just don't see the point in a Steam box?
Computers are general purpose computing devices. Consoles severely restrict what you can actually do with them regardless of their underlying technology.
Sure, a modern console may have an x86 processor. Good luck (in the case of the vast majority of people) installing/running arbitrary software on one.
Computers are general purpose computing devices. Consoles severely restrict what you can actually do with them regardless of their underlying technology.
So, the OS is what makes a PC or not, then? The restrictions are not built into the hardware, as far as I know, it's all software.
Sure, a modern console may have an x86 processor. Good luck (in the case of the vast majority of people) installing/running arbitrary software on one.
That's not a good reason. We don't define objects by the skill levels of the majority of the population. The majority of drivers can't make hot-laps around Leguna Seca, either, but that doesn't mean that a rented Fiat panda and a V8 supercar are not both cars.
It is both useful and common to make a distinction between a general purpose computing device and an appliance device that happens to compute. It's also useful to make that same distinction based on expected use cases discounting outliers.
Try installing Windows, and then running Photoshop and a normal unrestricted web browser, on an Xbox360.
Windows 8 is already turning into a console OS, I'm surprised the Xbox One doesn't just use Windows 8. Don't know what's stopping Microsoft from allowing developers to create productivity and misc. apps for the console. All they need to do is enable mouse and keyboard support.
Would immediately squash the Steam OS, since valve is intending the OS to be for games and software.
I'm significantly more interested in the controller and to a lesser extent the OS rather than hardware. I'm interested in seeing how differently a relatively stripped-down gaming-focused OS performs compared to running on a desktop, and I think the controller will be able to do some cool shit.
But seriously, I'd buy my own cheap HTPC and then stream all my games from the monster in my room.
It is both useful and common to make a distinction between a general purpose computing device and an appliance device that happens to compute. It's also useful to make that same distinction based on expected use cases discounting outliers.
I agree in principle, but the problem is not that fact, the problem is the definitions themselves.
For example, you can run your windows PC in Console mode, or do other similar things with the hardware - as is commonly seen in Karaoke machines, information kiosks, and so on, though I doubt that people think this performs some strange arcane magic that fundamentally changes them from PC to console. Even your phone is like that - a base OS hidden from the user, with a specialized application domain dramatically limiting the the hardware down from it's full potential. But I don't think either of us think that our phones are both Consoles too - despite fitting the same criteria.
Try installing Windows, and then running Photoshop and a normal unrestricted web browser, on an Xbox360.
Would it count if I could run ubuntu on it instead, and then run a compatible image-editing software? I know you don't think that only windows PCs are PCs, so I figure it should. And I know a guy who runs Ubuntu 11.10 on his 360, or at least used to, I don't know if he still does. Not sure if he ever ran Photoshop or did any other sort of image editing on it, but he most certainly did have an unrestricted web browser on it.
The distinction between what qualifies as a "PC" or a "console" isn't about arcane magic or user expertise, it's about design.
Yes, with enough computer expertise anything that has core components like CPU, memory, storage, and I/O can do essentially any computing task, but that doesn't mean that any and all such devices are equivalent.
The distinction between what qualifies as a "PC" or a "console" isn't about arcane magic or user expertise, it's about design.
Yes, with enough computer expertise anything that has core components like CPU, memory, storage, and I/O can do essentially any computing task, but that doesn't mean that any and all such devices are equivalent.
Yes, absolutely. I think that with the ubiquity of computing power in the modern world, we have to look at intended use, what it was designed to do. And I'll be honest, the steambox shares the same intended use as consoles, so I think it falls in the same category.
It's a device that works out of the box, with standardized hardware (if I take two valve steamboxes of the same model, they're probably going to be identical inside, and both of the popular consoles of this generation also had multiple models), that will run almost all games compatible with the system, made to provide a marketplace for publishers to publish their games and people to buy them, along with a system that - as mentioned - will definitely run them. They're all intended for living room use, they're all intended to be simple to use, they're all intended to be primarily gaming machines for the living room and your tv, with their secondary purpose being as media centers and using the internet(which admittedly, the 360 doesn't do well, but intent does not imply competency of execution).
Considering that, why shouldn't we consider them consoles, when they fill the same niche and primary purpose? And let's face it, the Steambox is pretty obviously intended as a product to eat Microsoft and Sony's lunch in that market.
Ignoring your pedantic semantic debate, here's how I see the difference between PC gaming and console gaming.
PC games are the kind of games that only really work well with the standard user interface of the PC. That is a mouse, a keyboard, and a high resolution screen that is close to your face.
The easiest example is Civilization. Look at this screenshot.
Even with an HDTV, there is no way you can process that highly information dense user interface from your couch. Even if you could, you could not efficiently use that interface without the precision of a device like a mouse or the multitude of buttons available on a keyboard. So far all attempts to create such input devices that are comfortable to use from the couch have failed.
Certain kinds of games can not have their interfaces redesigned to work on the couch while retaining the properties of the game itself. Civilization Revolution had to be vastly simplified to work on consoles, phones, and other platforms. Every attempt to move an RTS to consoles has failed miserably and obviously. Attempts to port FPSes to consoles, such as Wolfenstein 3D on SNES or Quake on N64, failed until they redesigned the games to be slower, have auto-aim, etc. as in Goldeneye and Halo. A complex roguelike like Nethack is pretty much impossible to play without a full keyboard. A text adventure is obviously impossible to play without a keyboard, but why hasn't anyone made one with voice input?
Super Meat Boy can be played on PC, but is it a PC game? Not really. There's nothing special about it that requires it be played on a PC without compromising it. The latest XCOM was released on consoles, but that's a PC game. Commanding units like that is quite a pain with a gamepad, though they have made it as good as it can be considering the circumstances. Only the highly simplified Advance Wars works on consoles, and that is because the information dense screen is close to your face. Also, on the DS the touch screen makes up for the loss of the mouse.
It just so happens that the kinds of games that can be played in a PC environment, which do not work well in a console environment, are more complex and information dense. Thus, they are typically more complex overall. Think Europa Universalis. With complexity comes a not always true perception that PC games are more challenging, smarter, and better. Thus, the PC gaming master race. Thus the Australians we met expressing the opinion that console games are baby games.
Notice that the primary feature of the Valve controller was its haptic touchpads. Valve wants you to be able to play PC games from your couch. They recognize that the analog stick is not up to the challenge of PC games. They've also got that screen in the middle, which I sure hope is a touch screen. Think about playing Civ V with a 360 controller. Now imagine with the Steam controller. It could actually work...
Ignoring your pedantic semantic debate, here's how I see the difference between PC gaming and console gaming.
Okay, so if you're going to ignore it, why the fuck even mention it? Your view was interesting and I do agree, but it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand, which was about if the Steambox is a console or not. You don't need to justify your participation in the thread by name-checking other discussions in the thread.
I guess yes, the point of all these consoles is the lack of adaptability in the UI of Windows. Among the other reasons.
Sitting on a couch to play games requires a different type interface because of the amount of information you can read from a distance. The GUI has to compensate for that. Otherwise everyone would need TV screens the size of their walls.
However consoles aren't really a solution to that problem, since the only problem is interface. No one makes money from just building good user interfaces, they have to sell to you in a box.
Having a PC gives you option to sit at a desk or on the sofa without needing to switch to a different computing device. Valve have solved this with big picture mode, kinda.
It would be good if your PC was just connected to all the monitors/ TVs in your home running all the applications you need as you need it.
Ignoring your pedantic semantic debate, here's how I see the difference between PC gaming and console gaming.
Okay, so if you're going to ignore it, why the fuck even mention it? Your view was interesting and I do agree, but it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand, which was about if the Steambox is a console or not. You don't need to justify your participation in the thread by name-checking other discussions in the thread.
That's my point. The Steambox is a console if it is only good for playing console games. If you can somehow play Master of Orion 2 on it comfortably, then it is a PC, at least in terms of gaming, though not in other terms.
That's my point. The Steambox is a console if it is only good for playing console games. If you can somehow play Master of Orion 2 on it comfortably, then it is a PC, at least in terms of gaming, though not in other terms.
I think the best part about this? It has all the "PC MASTER RACE" types going mental for a console. Then realizing they're going mental for a console. And then inventing new and wonderful definitions of "Computer" to try and exclude previous consoles, but include the steambox. The mental gymnastics just to keep that feeling of superiority are astounding.
The Steambox is a console if it is only good for playing console games. If you can somehow play Master of Orion 2 on it comfortably, then it is a PC, at least in terms of gaming, though not in other terms.
Comments
Either way the controller is trying to accommodate games that aren't very playable on controllers currently. Otherwise the answer is probably just use whatever you are currently using i.e. 2d platforming control has already been solved.
Also relevant: http://tommyrefenes.tumblr.com/post/62476523677/my-time-with-the-steam-controller
I guess I just don't see the point in a Steam box?
Sure, a modern console may have an x86 processor. Good luck (in the case of the vast majority of people) installing/running arbitrary software on one.
That's not a good reason. We don't define objects by the skill levels of the majority of the population. The majority of drivers can't make hot-laps around Leguna Seca, either, but that doesn't mean that a rented Fiat panda and a V8 supercar are not both cars.
Try installing Windows, and then running Photoshop and a normal unrestricted web browser, on an Xbox360.
Would immediately squash the Steam OS, since valve is intending the OS to be for games and software.
But seriously, I'd buy my own cheap HTPC and then stream all my games from the monster in my room.
For example, you can run your windows PC in Console mode, or do other similar things with the hardware - as is commonly seen in Karaoke machines, information kiosks, and so on, though I doubt that people think this performs some strange arcane magic that fundamentally changes them from PC to console. Even your phone is like that - a base OS hidden from the user, with a specialized application domain dramatically limiting the the hardware down from it's full potential. But I don't think either of us think that our phones are both Consoles too - despite fitting the same criteria. Would it count if I could run ubuntu on it instead, and then run a compatible image-editing software? I know you don't think that only windows PCs are PCs, so I figure it should. And I know a guy who runs Ubuntu 11.10 on his 360, or at least used to, I don't know if he still does. Not sure if he ever ran Photoshop or did any other sort of image editing on it, but he most certainly did have an unrestricted web browser on it.
Yes, with enough computer expertise anything that has core components like CPU, memory, storage, and I/O can do essentially any computing task, but that doesn't mean that any and all such devices are equivalent.
It's a device that works out of the box, with standardized hardware (if I take two valve steamboxes of the same model, they're probably going to be identical inside, and both of the popular consoles of this generation also had multiple models), that will run almost all games compatible with the system, made to provide a marketplace for publishers to publish their games and people to buy them, along with a system that - as mentioned - will definitely run them. They're all intended for living room use, they're all intended to be simple to use, they're all intended to be primarily gaming machines for the living room and your tv, with their secondary purpose being as media centers and using the internet(which admittedly, the 360 doesn't do well, but intent does not imply competency of execution).
Considering that, why shouldn't we consider them consoles, when they fill the same niche and primary purpose? And let's face it, the Steambox is pretty obviously intended as a product to eat Microsoft and Sony's lunch in that market.
PC games are the kind of games that only really work well with the standard user interface of the PC. That is a mouse, a keyboard, and a high resolution screen that is close to your face.
The easiest example is Civilization. Look at this screenshot.
Even with an HDTV, there is no way you can process that highly information dense user interface from your couch. Even if you could, you could not efficiently use that interface without the precision of a device like a mouse or the multitude of buttons available on a keyboard. So far all attempts to create such input devices that are comfortable to use from the couch have failed.
Certain kinds of games can not have their interfaces redesigned to work on the couch while retaining the properties of the game itself. Civilization Revolution had to be vastly simplified to work on consoles, phones, and other platforms. Every attempt to move an RTS to consoles has failed miserably and obviously. Attempts to port FPSes to consoles, such as Wolfenstein 3D on SNES or Quake on N64, failed until they redesigned the games to be slower, have auto-aim, etc. as in Goldeneye and Halo. A complex roguelike like Nethack is pretty much impossible to play without a full keyboard. A text adventure is obviously impossible to play without a keyboard, but why hasn't anyone made one with voice input?
Super Meat Boy can be played on PC, but is it a PC game? Not really. There's nothing special about it that requires it be played on a PC without compromising it. The latest XCOM was released on consoles, but that's a PC game. Commanding units like that is quite a pain with a gamepad, though they have made it as good as it can be considering the circumstances. Only the highly simplified Advance Wars works on consoles, and that is because the information dense screen is close to your face. Also, on the DS the touch screen makes up for the loss of the mouse.
It just so happens that the kinds of games that can be played in a PC environment, which do not work well in a console environment, are more complex and information dense. Thus, they are typically more complex overall. Think Europa Universalis. With complexity comes a not always true perception that PC games are more challenging, smarter, and better. Thus, the PC gaming master race. Thus the Australians we met expressing the opinion that console games are baby games.
Notice that the primary feature of the Valve controller was its haptic touchpads. Valve wants you to be able to play PC games from your couch. They recognize that the analog stick is not up to the challenge of PC games. They've also got that screen in the middle, which I sure hope is a touch screen. Think about playing Civ V with a 360 controller. Now imagine with the Steam controller. It could actually work...
And that's what a PC game is.
Sitting on a couch to play games requires a different type interface because of the amount of information you can read from a distance. The GUI has to compensate for that. Otherwise everyone would need TV screens the size of their walls.
However consoles aren't really a solution to that problem, since the only problem is interface. No one makes money from just building good user interfaces, they have to sell to you in a box.
Having a PC gives you option to sit at a desk or on the sofa without needing to switch to a different computing device. Valve have solved this with big picture mode, kinda.
It would be good if your PC was just connected to all the monitors/ TVs in your home running all the applications you need as you need it.