Could The Steam Box eat at the PS4/XBone? (Sales Wise?)

[CriticalMiss]

If it is a console/living room PC then I think at best it will nibble at the crumbs left behind by the PS4, Xbone and WiiU. But I think Valve would rather aim at PC gamers who don't already have a mid-to-high end PC and hope a few dirty casuals sneak in to see what is going on. Even though Valve are good at making games and have managed to wrangle a good portion of digital distribution, going in to hardware is a big leap even for them. Especially when the big boys are just about to release their lastest offering and have had years to hone their bullshit. So unless they have made something truly wonderful they are unlikely to want to compete directly with consoles.

But since some people have said they are skipping the next gen and would sooner get a PC, maybe Valve will be there to offer the alternative people want. A no nonsense PC-Console hybrid that focuses on gaming.

It could also be an announcement that Valve are entering the sauna market.

 

[Nocturnus]

It could affect consoles a lot. If the Steam Box has the ability to play all the games on Steam, it essentially comes with an already established library that both consoles will lack for years to come.

And that's the problem. It won't. It will run all games based on the Linux Platform, which is a fraction of Steam's active library.

IF it had the ability to play all current and future Steam games? It would kick some serious rear-end. It sadly, doesn't, and I with that, I don't think that people are going to want to buy it when they could get a PS4 or PC and get just that.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I'm with Jeffers on this one. I don't think it will have all that much of an impact, especially at the start. The console market is already pretty established and I don't see the Steam Box offering something beyond what the console market already has. The dedicated PC market, on the other hand, is likely to scoff at the Steam Box because they already have their own rigs that they run on their TVs if they want.

Personally, I could be persuaded to pick up a Steam Box at some point but that's just because I'm only a minor league PC gamer. If I could pick up a cheap box that would allow me to play the few major PC exclusive games I do care about better than my current desktop can, I would consider doing so, but could I really do that for less than just buying a new regular desktop PC? I doubt it.

Basically, I don't think the Steam Box will blow anyone away simply because I don't see what sort of market it's really going to be serving.

 

[Robert Marrs]

I love valve and steam but this just seems like a bad idea. I don't see the appeal personally. Microsoft and Sony already have great consoles with a dedicated fan base. A lot of console players buy consoles and games according to what their friends are playing. Plus linux. Kind of short on the support there. Something tells me they have some sort of trick up their sleeve though and hopefully it works out.

 

[TelHybrid]

What market are they looking to sell to? It costs around $1000 it would appear based on articles read (thanks Google). People buy consoles as a something that's cheaper (short term) than a PC.

People who want to spend that sort of money on tech will either build their own PC, or if they know nothing about tech, buy an Alienware.

As for the form factor, yes it's small and neat, but it's still a device that needs a TV or monitor connected, so the size isn't beneficial functionally speaking, apart from mere aesthetics.

This offers nothing new to video games. I'll be very surprised if this thing breaks even.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I personally think that it might affect the PS4 a little bit, but it would definitely be fighting Microsoft in terms of sales. Heck, I think it would actually split XBone sales in America and straight up steal them in Europe.

I think that unless it is much cheaper than either new console (as in the $200-250 price range) it's impact will be minimal.

Valve's problem is that their first party games are comparatively old and specialist in a lot of cases, but also for a console to really succeed they need the big releases from Activision and EA. Activision would likely turn up, they do very well out of Steam already.

EA won't, unless the Steam Box sells a bajillion units they will stay firmly away and there'll be no Madden, Fifa, Battlefield, Titanfall or Mass Effect on the Steambox. That will seriously hurt sales.

Also, Valve being Valve, it will probably contain some kind of DRM that requires connection, maybe it won't, but Valve have built their entire business up around a DRM system, so they'll cling to it tenaciously (and try to use it as a selling point, access to your Steam account!), Unless it's a very literal PC in a box I can't see it having a huge library either, especially not for the older games that make Steam so attractive.

So no, specialist device for the enthusiasts.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Absolutely not in the slightest. In fact, I think if Valve tried to enter the console space with anything less than a console that's at least as powerful as the PS4 AND can play all PC games without any need for hacking trickery, it would be a financial disaster for Valve.

Here's why I think this:

-Valve has had a recent hard-on for Linux: so they will probably make the box to run Linux, which does not run 90% of the most popular games or just games in general.

-There is already a MASSIVE audience for the console space that is dead-set on never buying anything else because they're too used to what's already there. A new competitor would definitely be ignored like any other console that has come out post-Xbox/PS2/GameCube.

-Valve's audience is pretty much ALL on PC. If they already have a console and a PC that can run whatever they want, why would they buy ANOTHER console that will definitely not run most of the games they already have? Would they do it based on the "promise" of added games in the future? Consumers, even the smart ones like us, are not that patient and are usually too smart to borrow against the future like that.

-It would be too expensive. What's the last kind of "steam box" that came out recently? The piston, right? Well THAT didn't go over too well as I remember. It was about 1000 dollars and as powerful as a $350 PC. Its only benefit? It was small. If Valve truly wanted to compete in the console space it would have to develop hardware that was competitively-priced with the PS4/Xbone AND (since it would run a version of Steam's Big Picture Mode, no doubt) it would need to be able to play everyone's games (which would mean either streaming them to the console, which isn't possible for the majority of the world and even a large percentage of their own audience due to very small bandwith caps, or coming with Windows 7 which would automatically make the console over $100 more expensive).

The ONLY way I could see it being any kind of financial success is if it had big-name exclusives. Like, say, it came pre-installed with Half-Life 3, Left 4 Dead 3, Team Fortress 3, and Portal 3. But since that would never happen, the console would just be a huge flop for Valve, probably leading to layoffs and Valve having to play it safe for a long time (or, again, release Half-Life 3, which would probably recoup those losses).

So no, there either ISN'T a Steam Box on the horizon until the majority of games are Linux-compatible right out of the box, OR Valve is willing to take a big financial hit over something that would not have a big enough audience, library, and support to be successful.

 

[mad825]

I'd applaud it if console gamers take a stand against Steam and it fails spectacularly, if only PC gamers had actually had a spine a few years ago then PC gaming wouldn't be such a trainwreck right now.

What are you referring to exactly? Most high-end publishers point to cop out arguments which could easier be said the same to consoles.

 

[Snotnarok]

Well the last company that tried to bring DRM/cloud storage bullshit to consoles is now lying smoldering in a ditch after being run over by the PS4 hype train, so this can only end well. I'd applaud it if console gamers take a stand against Steam and it fails spectacularly, if only PC gamers had actually had a spine a few years ago then PC gaming wouldn't be such a trainwreck right now.

PC gaming is a train wreck? Since when?
If you're trying to say Xbone DRM was the same as Steam, they're not at all alike.
The biggest difference is Steams sales often net people games at 15%-75% off, Borderlands 2 was $60 on console, I got it for $14 on steam, Pay Day 2 launched for $50 on console, $30 on steam.
The major difference being that you don't have to have steam to enjoy games, you can get games off GoG, Origin, Uplay, at a game store, GMG, which ever site suits your needs while Xbone your only option is to buy games that come from MS.
While Xbone demanded 24 hour check ins, steam you can play offline, I've had it for a while now and I really like owning the physical copy but Steam hasn't really gotten in the way. Vs say a PS3 where when I put it on to play a game I have to sit through 3 updates often that take a half an hour to do, steam updates games while it's on, a feature Sony charges for.

Each to their own but it's just another platform like any other, and it's certainly not anywhere near the retardation that was XBone drm.

 

[mad825]

I mean that every PC game now is infected with DRM (following after Valve's Steam example). A few years ago I bought Dragon Age Origins, installed it and played it without once having a need for an internet connection (mine is crap). Now I have to sign in to Steam to play Skyrim, a single player only game, that is nonsense, but all other PC gamers act like steam is this thing that came to us by golden chariot from mount Olympus

I see what you mean...However before Steam we had SecuROM and they themselves were starting to offer publishers the requirement for Always-on and Online checking for every launch. Considering that SecuROM has a lot of notorious problems such as installing Spyware, bloatware and creating numerous technical issues; being false-positives for AVs and refusing to authentic for some explicit reason.

I do agree, Steam is not the solution but it's baby steps. Hopefully, GoG/CD Projeckt can innovate in some manner.

What you could do however, redeem DA:O on origin and then you won't need an additional client to play the game. It's a pre-origin game and no additional DRM has been added.

 

[skywolfblue]

Given that Third Party developers generally hate the PC platform, hate Linux, and a lot of them hate Steam too:

How is valve going to convince other companies to develop games for this steam box?

In my dreams, I'm wishing that it will push Linux enough to actually start making more people aware of it and making games for it. Eventually somewhere in the future it gets to a point where "But I need Windows to play my games" ceases to be a thing. But I doubt that will happen.

 

[Snotnarok]

Well the last company that tried to bring DRM/cloud storage bullshit to consoles is now lying smoldering in a ditch after being run over by the PS4 hype train, so this can only end well. I'd applaud it if console gamers take a stand against Steam and it fails spectacularly, if only PC gamers had actually had a spine a few years ago then PC gaming wouldn't be such a trainwreck right now.

PC gaming is a train wreck? Since when?
If you're trying to say Xbone DRM was the same as Steam, they're not at all alike.
The biggest difference is Steams sales often net people games at 15%-75% off, Borderlands 2 was $60 on console, I got it for $14 on steam, Pay Day 2 launched for $50 on console, $30 on steam.
The major difference being that you don't have to have steam to enjoy games, you can get games off GoG, Origin, Uplay, at a game store, GMG, which ever site suits your needs while Xbone your only option is to buy games that come from MS.
While Xbone demanded 24 hour check ins, steam you can play offline, I've had it for a while now and I really like owning the physical copy but Steam hasn't really gotten in the way. Vs say a PS3 where when I put it on to play a game I have to sit through 3 updates often that take a half an hour to do, steam updates games while it's on, a feature Sony charges for.

Each to their own but it's just another platform like any other, and it's certainly not anywhere near the retardation that was XBone drm.

Why do DRM apologists always point to the Steam-sales? DRM is not a requirement for cheap games. Otherwise you wouldn't see sales in retailers that sell physical copies, right? Yet when I walk into my local game store I see lots of recent titles below the 40? or even 20? pricepoint

DRM apologists? I'm sorry but the thing is when you're going onto a forum and putting out wrong information it's going to get responses.

Consoles are a form of DRM, they verify that the game you insert into the disc drive is real, they checked for DLC linked to the game is linked to your account, they check for digital titles on your account, you purchase things off PSN and XBL and are required to both own a matching console and have an account with them, PS3 & 360 will scan media inserted for tags on the disc to see if it's pirated and cut out the audio, you must use their online services to play games, some console choices even charging yearly fees for basic features.

That is a lot more invasive than even Origin, because while games on PC may have DRM, you're at least aware of which service and can pick it up on the website/digital distribution of your choice, you can find EA games on steam and steam games on Origin.
I have a PS3, Wii, had a 360 and many older gen consoles, I'm not ignorant to how they work because I still use them but I think you're mental if you think steam is this be-all-end-all form of DRM that consoles free you from.

Why do many people bring up steam sales? Because while yes there's some sales of some games every so often on console and the sale is maybe 20 dollars off.
You can buy entire publisher catalogs for 60 dollars on steam when they go on sale. I bought the THQ catalog for 25 bucks, that includes all DLC, that's not something you see on anything else. It's a common event.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

There isn't a lot of the console-only crowd who actually know what Steam or know who valve is, so it won't compete as much as you might think. The console crowd, while some are PC users, don't necessarily know PC games exist or if they do they don't care.
I just don't think steambox can contend with the consoles, and it shouldn't try.

 

[BrotherRool]

Also, Valve being Valve, it will probably contain some kind of DRM that requires connection, maybe it won't, but Valve have built their entire business up around a DRM system, so they'll cling to it tenaciously (and try to use it as a selling point, access to your Steam account!), Unless it's a very literal PC in a box I can't see it having a huge library either, especially not for the older games that make Steam so attractive.

There's a very strong chance that it won't even have a disk drive. They did an interview where they complaining about systems like Piston using one

when we say to people "don't put an optical media drive in there" and they put an optical media drive in there and you're like "that makes it hotter, that makes it more expensive, and it makes the box bigger." Go ahead. You can always sell the Best box, and those are just whatever those guys want to manufacture. [Valve's position is]: let's build a thing that?s quiet and focuses on high performance and appropriate form factors.

And if it's literally Steam then it would come with the mandatory 2 week on-line checks at the very least. (If you don't connect Steam to the internet every two weeks offline mode stops functioning)
http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/1/828937979095845728/

 

[fix-the-spade]

There's a very strong chance that it won't even have a disk drive. They did an interview where they complaining about systems like Piston using one

Wow, if it doesn't have a disc drive it's doomed. Considering the backlash against Xbone, the hypothetical Steambox sounds like all the bits of the Xbone people reacted badly to and only those bits. They might have overstepped the mark here, aiming for a market that really genuinely doesn't want them, there's unlikely to be a Half Life 3 to force anyone's hand too.