j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Is Valve going to require developers to spend money and time porting over all their games to Linux in order for the Steambox to be able to play them? Surely that's going to be a massive headache, especially for older games where the developers may not even be around any more. It took Lucasarts eight friggin' years just to bring KOTOR 2 to Steam. Are they going to want to waste time and money making it compatible with Linux, given its eight years old and they never liked the game anyway? Last I checked, Steam only had 15 or so games compatible with Linux. That's not even a fraction of a fraction of their library.
As it stands, they are supposedly building their own distro of Linux. So, for all we know, it will be one compatible with the DX environment.
Still, though, until they say more we can only speculate. However, I can't see them releasing a system that would be incompatible with 95% of their own services catalog.
I also don't understand why Gabe Newell is so anti-Windows 8 and its more fenced in approach, when everything about Steam and seemingly the Steam Box is going to be fenced in. It'll basically be a PC which either requires Steam downloaded or retail-bought Steam games to play. How is that not fenced in? It's essentially a walled in, reduced-function PC.
Thing is, the Steam Box will NOT be "fenced in".
This is the one thing that's been bugging me since they first announced it. Everyone's been reading too much into misinformation or not reading enough of what's been said.
It's a unified
hardware unit. The software end is completely open.
The Linux build, as far as I'm aware, will provide a ground-work from which devs can optimize their games. However, if the user wants to install another operating system, or their own media
(disc based games or what have you), they can. The system isn't "locked down".
So if you want to install Origin on your Steam Box, go for it.
So on topic: I think Phil Harrison is just giving some honest advice. Console are super expensive. Micorosoft sunk $5 billion into the original Xbox alone, and much as I loved it, it hardly set the world on fire. That's a huge amount of money, enough I'm sure to sink a smaller company like Valve. There are a lot of Steam users out there, but I seriously doubt that there's a huge market of Steam users who also want a console, but are unhappy with what the Big Three have on offer. People that unhappy with consoles tend to stick with building their own PCs anyway. Microsoft knew who they were targeting with the original Xbox: western gamers who wanted console games with the graphical polish and online multiplayer of PC games. Even then, the brand didn't take off until the 360. Sony were able to come into the console market at a time when Sega was on hiatus, and Nintendo were the only other company with any major stake in the console market. The PS1 and N64 was a two horse race, so it was easy for Sony to pull ahead. And Nintendo have been making consoles since forever, and aren't likely to stop anytime soon.
I actually agree. At face value, it
does seem like sage advice.
But as I said previously, I have to question the purpose of saying it in the public space and not directly. It seems more like a threat; a rattling of the sabers if you will; rather than a precautionary warning.
Especially as Harrison seems almost dismissive of Valves impact on the gaming space with Steam.
Where does Valve fit here? There isn't an easy opening into the console race, it's already pretty crowded. The Big Three not only all have current gen consoles out, they've started bringing out their next gen consoles too. The Ouya has managed to get a lot of attention on the side by offering an Android console. The Gamestick and Shield are now trying to muscle in on that same territory. What is Valve's schtick? What is it they've got that will allow them to elbow their way into the hardware race, and not get trampled by everyone else? That's essentially what I think Harrison is trying to say, and it makes me facepalm that so many people are so quick to jump on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon because he dared slate precious Valve.
They have several things that may allow them to "elbow in" to the console space.
First: We are already on the verge of a new generation of consoles. As such, many gamers are eagerly awaiting new hardware with which to game on. Likewise, almost as many are growing tired of the limited services and feature sets the "big three" are offering.
Second: There are several companies entering the gaming hardware space, with varying success, that have little to nothing to do with "the big three". Which tells us that your average gamer isn't necessarily single-mindedly devoted to one console or another. As such, just going by this only, Valve has just as much a shot as any other company currently entering the game system space.
Thirdly: They have a distribution service with a user base greater than that of Xbox Live or PSN. And, while many already have their own gaming PCs with which to play, just as many don't have "top-of-the-line" rigs. Taking this into account, I imagine quite a few of them would be interested in a gaming system that would all-but guarantee they could play any game in their Steam library. Or, in the very least, one that is dedicated from the ground up to work with Steam.
Fourthly: They aren't planning to assume control of the entire gaming community. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can fight over that. Valve, as Newell has explained, simply wants to have their own hardware solution in the market space. If users and developers like it, then win/win. If it's not as popular as they hope, then at least they can appeal to a niche market. Which may be perfect for a company of their size.
Yes, Valve are a great games company. No, they are not infallible. They can make mistakes the same as anyone else. When Steam first launched, it was a legitimate steaming pile of crap. It had the benefit of several years worth of overhauling and updating to become the service it is. That's not the case with consoles. A crap launch can destroy you. Microsoft and Sony were able to get over their rather lacklustre launches because they had enough money to just keep throwing at their consoles. The same can't be said for Sega, Atari or the many other companies that have dabbled in gaming hardware, only to get their whiskers singed as a result.
Who's saying Valve is infallible? I've only time I've ever heard anyone mention the concept of Valve being "infallible" is in comments very much like yours. As in, claiming they're not.
And yes, we're all aware of how bad Steam was in the past. Believe me, I can attest to it. I was there from the beginning.
We're all also aware that a "crap launch" can ruin a company. Sega alone is testament to that. However, I can't imagine Valve, at this point anyway, attempting to release something as significant as a "console" without taking extraordinary precautions. I'm not saying it will be flawless, not by any stretch of the imagination, however I seriously doubt they're going into this blindly.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I'm not saying Valve is perfect or faultless. They've done, and sometimes still do, some things that have bothered and irritated me to a great degree. Even so, for every person that's already blindly praising this Steam Box concept, there's at least one other person already attempting to ring it's death knell.
Which, I must say, I find particularly amusing as many here in the Escapist community practically jump down someones throat if that person starts speculating on what the next gen consoles will be like. They insist the person is foolish for making presumptions about the next gen before any solid details are released. Especially if that person questions how powerful or underwhelming the hardware will be.
Yet, when it comes to this Steam Box thing, those same people are already jumping on the "what's the point" and "who wants this" wagon.
