I have a few questions:
To the OP:
Beyond an estimated price point, can you give us some speculative hardware specs? Maybe some theoretical features (beyond the usual Steam affair) or unique interface device(s). Basically, something that would differentiate "The Valve Box" from the other consoles and would warrant it's use over PCs.
To some others:
Why are so many people assuming that, t'were Valve to make a console, it'd only have Valve games on it? The Playstation and the Xbox don't only have Sony and Microsoft games, respectively.
I also wonder why so many people are assuming Valve would make the hardware themselves. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo don't. They license hardware from other manufacturers. AMD, Intel, nVidia, etc, etc.
People seem to be under the impression that it would cost way more than any other new console. Not that it's beyond the realm of possibility (this is all pure conjecture after all) but I'd like someone to elaborate on why it would have to cost more. Besides, with all the cash they make on TF2 hats, they could probably put the thing out for free.
Honestly, I'm somewhere in between yes and maybe, with a strong possibility of swooping right into no. While I am fond of their games, it's their philosophy on gaming in general that would persuade me. They are avid supporters of open-source gaming, modding communities, indie or small developers, ease of account access, free or cheap content (DLC), timely and frequent bug fixes and updates, and sales. Not to mention free access to a wealth of online features. (Steam friends, Steam Cloud, matchmaking, etc) Essentially, concepts Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are against or features those three have, but done better.
Based solely on that, I'd think most people on here, even fervent Valve haters, would love a console by them.
I also think, if Valve actually wanted to do this, they'd probably follow the OnLive model and build a full featured cloud gaming rig that would also make use of Steam's features.
That said, considering how small Valve is (250 employees or less. not even close to the size of, say, Blizzard's or Bioware's programming departments.) I really can't see how they'd pull it off without spending a MASSIVE fortune designing the infrastructure for the service, designing the system, hiring a manufacturer to make the thing, and figuring out all the logistics of getting it to market, advertising it, and getting 3rd party support. Something they simply don't have the cash for. They'd have stiff competition from the Big 3 as well. They'd be a relative unknown to most console gamers and would thusly have a hell of a time breaking into the market without taking a huge hit financially.
To the OP:
Beyond an estimated price point, can you give us some speculative hardware specs? Maybe some theoretical features (beyond the usual Steam affair) or unique interface device(s). Basically, something that would differentiate "The Valve Box" from the other consoles and would warrant it's use over PCs.
To some others:
Why are so many people assuming that, t'were Valve to make a console, it'd only have Valve games on it? The Playstation and the Xbox don't only have Sony and Microsoft games, respectively.
I also wonder why so many people are assuming Valve would make the hardware themselves. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo don't. They license hardware from other manufacturers. AMD, Intel, nVidia, etc, etc.
People seem to be under the impression that it would cost way more than any other new console. Not that it's beyond the realm of possibility (this is all pure conjecture after all) but I'd like someone to elaborate on why it would have to cost more. Besides, with all the cash they make on TF2 hats, they could probably put the thing out for free.
Honestly, I'm somewhere in between yes and maybe, with a strong possibility of swooping right into no. While I am fond of their games, it's their philosophy on gaming in general that would persuade me. They are avid supporters of open-source gaming, modding communities, indie or small developers, ease of account access, free or cheap content (DLC), timely and frequent bug fixes and updates, and sales. Not to mention free access to a wealth of online features. (Steam friends, Steam Cloud, matchmaking, etc) Essentially, concepts Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are against or features those three have, but done better.
Based solely on that, I'd think most people on here, even fervent Valve haters, would love a console by them.
I also think, if Valve actually wanted to do this, they'd probably follow the OnLive model and build a full featured cloud gaming rig that would also make use of Steam's features.
That said, considering how small Valve is (250 employees or less. not even close to the size of, say, Blizzard's or Bioware's programming departments.) I really can't see how they'd pull it off without spending a MASSIVE fortune designing the infrastructure for the service, designing the system, hiring a manufacturer to make the thing, and figuring out all the logistics of getting it to market, advertising it, and getting 3rd party support. Something they simply don't have the cash for. They'd have stiff competition from the Big 3 as well. They'd be a relative unknown to most console gamers and would thusly have a hell of a time breaking into the market without taking a huge hit financially.
I actually agree with you to a certain extent. That has always bothered me the few times I've needed a tech support answer. But, every time it started bothering me, I remembered they have very limited man-power over there. (again, 250 employees) I can almost excuse the lack of live phone support with that in mind. Still, a slightly more accessible tech support forum/wiki would be nice. You hear that GabeN? Get on it.Rednog said:
