This is just an idle thought that came to me as I was reading through all this. Perhaps the true best use of the new 4K resolution TVs, at least for now, is for information dense PC games on a large screen with either a PC and mouse or the Steam controller.
The Steam controller is the most compelling part of the whole thing for me. I assume for most people? I'm definitely interested based on that alone.
I'm a little leery of the OnLive style streaming of games from your nearby PC. Does that mean that this thing won't be beefy enough to run, say, Just Cause 2 by itself? In that instance my interest is pretty thin. I need a device that can hold its own or else it's not worth buying.
The SteamBox seems fine since not everyone wants to build dedicated HDPCs or has the ability to just run an HDMI cable.
The controller, as a mouse and keyboard replacement, seems like a solution looking for a problem. Mouse and keyboard gaming is less a choice of input device as it is a different challenge; instead of primarily demanding physical execution, it demands mental execution, changing the physical medium is pointless. The kludge of the keyboard and mouse input is just as good as the streamlined controller built specifically for the purpose.
I can't see replacing the mouse and keyboard with a device whose only real advantage is that it facilitates leaning back on a couch improves the experience of playing those games since you'll likely still be hunched over yourself, just over a coffee table instead if a desk.
Oh well, if it makes pc ports of console games better to play and improves accessibility, it's a net positive.
I don't agree. Personally, the currently available controllers are all I dislike about couch gaming. I'd happily play a deeply involved Civ-type game on my big TV from my recliner if the control scheme would allow it. Maybe with some sort of magnifier functionality for fine details.
A Steambox is a Steambox... a 360 is a 360 and an xbone is an xbone. I can call it a console and you can call them all gaming computers and I can call a razer gaming laptop a portable game console if I like, and... isn't it all correct?
From a marketing standpoint, Steambox is being sold in the same niche as a gaming console, but aimed to a crossover crowd between people who like using a PC for mostly gaming and people who played on the consoles who liked a stable platform with set parameters. It's a good turnkey experience and gives you a good benchmark as a game dev.
It's really no different than going and buying a gaming rig from Alienware other than it will likely have a greater cost/performance value and is tailored towards the living room.
It's a console? Yes. It's a PC? Yes.
I play my Xbox from the same chair and monitor as my Desktop computer. I sometimes play PC games with my 360 controller. The only core difference for me between booting BF3 on 360 and on PC is the interface I use to move my character, and the fact that PC has 64 player support and full size maps.
Basically it doesn't matter. The reason I won't be buying a next gen console from Sony or MS or whoever for a whole is that my Desktop now will run at least as good as they will for the better part of the generation, and many of the games and experiences will be shared between all platforms.
I've long since abandoned PC gaming, since I could never afford a good spec PC the run the games I liked. Now times are a changing. Muh fuckin geforce 770 is in the horizon.
I don't agree. Personally, the currently available controllers are all I dislike about couch gaming. I'd happily play a deeply involved Civ-type game on my big TV from my recliner if the control scheme would allow it. Maybe with some sort of magnifier functionality for fine details.
I'd love to play a fully functional Civ V (or any slower paced game you can play with only a mouse) on an iPad on the couch, but not on a tv. Something about the physical distance to the screen seems... wrong.
Yeah, but nobody who's willing to buy a machine that powerful for their TV will go with a Steambox... I want to see the supercheap box running SteamOS, built for game and media streaming, because that's the one most likely to permeate the market.
I think the SteamOS and Steambox is just a way of valve reaching the average consumer, showing them that PC are for games to, without teaching them why or how to do it with just Microsoft Windows.
I guess the strategy is to brand the PC as a console, so that less knowledgeable consumers realise the hardware differences by seeing it, without going through choosing PC parts, knowing what fits with what etc. etc.
Even though all that is very straight forward, most people won't bother, despite all the potential benefits.
Yeah, but nobody who's willing to buy a machine that powerful for their TV will go with a Steambox... I want to see the supercheap box running SteamOS, built for game and media streaming, because that's the one most likely to permeate the market.
There's a lot of people who have money but don't know shit about computers and certainly couldn't put one together or want to take the time to learn. I wouldn't make assumptions like that.
All I really care about is that they take this year or so before the release to get the developers to make Linux versions of their games available. Also, that controller looks pretty damn weird. I see the use for touchpads but the button layout is awkward and I feel like a regular thumbstick might be better on the left side for moving around.
I think the Steam OS is posturing by Valve towards both the console realm and (more importantly) making sure they have an out, in case Microsoft decides all applications must be vetted through a Microsoft Application store.
I think the Steam OS is posturing by Valve towards both the console realm and (more importantly) making sure they have an out, in case Microsoft decides all applications must be vetted through a Microsoft Application store.
Windows 7 is the new XP. Gamers are ignoring Windows 8.
I think the Steam OS is posturing by Valve towards both the console realm and (more importantly) making sure they have an out, in case Microsoft decides all applications must be vetted through a Microsoft Application store.
Windows 7 is the new XP. Gamers are ignoring Windows 8.
That's only because everyone is saying that everyone is ignoring Windows 8. I use it every day and I like it. And, actually, if you want to get technical, Windows 8 is better for games because it uses less system resources than Windows 7.
That's only because everyone is saying that everyone is ignoring Windows 8. I use it every day and I like it. And, actually, if you want to get technical, Windows 8 is better for games because it uses less system resources than Windows 7.
Yeah I agree with Victor, Windows 8 is a great operating system, it just doesn't need the default tile system. The smart option would have been to boot into tiles only if you have touch screen or are using a tablet rather than forcing the new GUI.
However the deal breaker is Microsoft moving towards the idiotic totalitarian style of letting applications run on an operating system.
I still use Windows 7 at the moment but my brother's been using 8 and hasn't had any problems.
Actually. I like the Start screen too. I think the interface is fluid and beautiful. Everytime I have to go back to the "Desktop", I feel like I'm being dragged back. If I don't need to specifically access something in my bookmarks in Chrome, I use Internet Explorer. Once Office and Chrome get Metro interfaces, the only thing dragging me back is Audition. For Steam, I use an app called "Steam Tiles" to make tiles for the games I play the most. I will say that there needs to be a better file manager in the Metro interface, though.
And what is totalitarian about applications running on the operating system? Hasn't that always been the case?
There is something already like that on Windows 8 RT. But if you think that will EVER be forced on the regular x86/x64 then I'd like a hit of whatever it is you're smoking. The non-RT Windows 8 environment can't afford to be restricted because the Windows ecosystem relies on relatively open access. Requiring that all applications be signed or certified would suffocate windows application development. Microsoft isn't that stupid.
So, it's crazy to think that a restriction they've put in place on one platform, a restriction that they seem to like, would end up on another platform?
Yes. Because there will never be Quickbooks for Windows RT, nor AutoCAD, nor SolidWorks, nor any other serious application in any field.
To implement signing and certs on the Windows 8 x86 platform would kill Windows for one reason and one reason only: Backwards compatibility. How much software do you own? Those old versions of Photoshop that you bought that is still able to run on windows would suddenly stop working. How much just on steam? Do you think all of the game devs will go and put the time and money into get their software signed and certified? What about all the games by companies that no longer exist?
Backwards compatibility and open development is the lifeblood of Windows. No matter how much you whine about the new metro ui, you can't say that Windows 8 wont run Windows 7 apps. Hell, even software designed for Windows XP still runs on Windows 8 (in my case, Adobe Audition 3).
So, yes, it would be absolutely crazy. Microsoft is many things, but crazy ain't one of them.
I'm guessing if they did anything like that, it would probably be in an appstore rather than all of Windows 8. That's basically how it is on OSX. You can make what you want outside of the appstore but to get in you have to be approved and whatnot.
Comments
I'm a little leery of the OnLive style streaming of games from your nearby PC. Does that mean that this thing won't be beefy enough to run, say, Just Cause 2 by itself? In that instance my interest is pretty thin. I need a device that can hold its own or else it's not worth buying.
The SteamBox seems fine since not everyone wants to build dedicated HDPCs or has the ability to just run an HDMI cable.
The controller, as a mouse and keyboard replacement, seems like a solution looking for a problem. Mouse and keyboard gaming is less a choice of input device as it is a different challenge; instead of primarily demanding physical execution, it demands mental execution, changing the physical medium is pointless. The kludge of the keyboard and mouse input is just as good as the streamlined controller built specifically for the purpose.
I can't see replacing the mouse and keyboard with a device whose only real advantage is that it facilitates leaning back on a couch improves the experience of playing those games since you'll likely still be hunched over yourself, just over a coffee table instead if a desk.
Oh well, if it makes pc ports of console games better to play and improves accessibility, it's a net positive.
I guess I'm thinking more about dota or starcraft.
From a marketing standpoint, Steambox is being sold in the same niche as a gaming console, but aimed to a crossover crowd between people who like using a PC for mostly gaming and people who played on the consoles who liked a stable platform with set parameters. It's a good turnkey experience and gives you a good benchmark as a game dev.
It's really no different than going and buying a gaming rig from Alienware other than it will likely have a greater cost/performance value and is tailored towards the living room.
It's a console? Yes. It's a PC? Yes.
I play my Xbox from the same chair and monitor as my Desktop computer. I sometimes play PC games with my 360 controller. The only core difference for me between booting BF3 on 360 and on PC is the interface I use to move my character, and the fact that PC has 64 player support and full size maps.
Basically it doesn't matter. The reason I won't be buying a next gen console from Sony or MS or whoever for a whole is that my Desktop now will run at least as good as they will for the better part of the generation, and many of the games and experiences will be shared between all platforms.
Then I can play pokemon red at infinite FPS.
I guess the strategy is to brand the PC as a console, so that less knowledgeable consumers realise the hardware differences by seeing it, without going through choosing PC parts, knowing what fits with what etc. etc.
Even though all that is very straight forward, most people won't bother, despite all the potential benefits.
I think the Steam OS is posturing by Valve towards both the console realm and (more importantly) making sure they have an out, in case Microsoft decides all applications must be vetted through a Microsoft Application store.
However the deal breaker is Microsoft moving towards the idiotic totalitarian style of letting applications run on an operating system.
I still use Windows 7 at the moment but my brother's been using 8 and hasn't had any problems.
And what is totalitarian about applications running on the operating system? Hasn't that always been the case?
To implement signing and certs on the Windows 8 x86 platform would kill Windows for one reason and one reason only: Backwards compatibility. How much software do you own? Those old versions of Photoshop that you bought that is still able to run on windows would suddenly stop working. How much just on steam? Do you think all of the game devs will go and put the time and money into get their software signed and certified? What about all the games by companies that no longer exist?
Backwards compatibility and open development is the lifeblood of Windows. No matter how much you whine about the new metro ui, you can't say that Windows 8 wont run Windows 7 apps. Hell, even software designed for Windows XP still runs on Windows 8 (in my case, Adobe Audition 3).
So, yes, it would be absolutely crazy. Microsoft is many things, but crazy ain't one of them.