If Valve is making a console then why would they be working with Sony to put more and more Steam integration in the PS3.
Valve working on 'Steam Box' console
- Thread starter Sansha
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's some evidence to suggest that it could happen.GiantRaven said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983
Read up on it. Source? look around you. Consoles are fundamentally flawed in the idea. Sony, and the xbox are choking financially (basically they worked themselves into a corner). Look at how the generation of these consoles were lengthened due to high production costs of unleashing a new console. What does this mean? They need to adopt more PC ideas to increase longevity like selling upgrades, and other attachments. The high cost, and longer generation will spell out the death of consoles on the loss leader method of business. The death of consoles isn't by lack of players, its choking on costs. If selling consoles themselves can't make a profit they rely on games. On the developer's side however its absolute hell. Console tax, second hand market, and high development costs on top of that. If you want I can get the statistics to show the drop of the number of console games from the last generation to this one.
Here is the graph of games courtesy of Metacritic's game database.
Sixth Generation (1999-2006):
Ps2: 792 (out of 1609)
Xbox: 471 (out of 856)
Gamecube: 263 (out of 502)
Total Games: 2967.
Total games over 70%: 1526.
Seventh Generation (2005-present):
Ps3: 341 (out of 579)
Xbox 360: 479 (out of 924)
Wii: 242 (out of 649)
Total Games: 2152.
Total games over 70%: 1062.
See this graph? We are in year 6 of the console generation. The time frame for the last generation was 7 years, and yet the current generation is off by 856 games. Now you could say "higher complexity" of games, and that is the problem. You see when the Xbox and PS3 were first released they were sold at a loss, relying on console games to make up the difference. The Nintendo's wii however was the only console making a profit at that time. The reason? The Wii was cheaper to make, and has been known to be less advanced than its cousins. In short, the new tech doesn't fit into a small box like it used to. Standardization does not work anymore. The tech gets more complex, the cost becomes higher, and the profits decrease. You could say "oh but the console makes more money" but it isn't that way in the eyes of Activision, who makes 70% of their money from the PC, and portable PCs. Keep in mind this is the same "PC hating publisher" that was responsible for modern Warfare 2.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox_delivers_a_profit.html
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.203926-Kotick-Only-30-of-Activisions-Profits-Come-from-Consoles
Basically, the profits are being drained by many factors including manufacturing, tech level, mounting development costs, etc. Want a "source" on the mounting development costs too?
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/ubisoft-development-costs-to-double-next-gen
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.52799-News-Report-Says-Rising-Development-Costs-A-Nightmare
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9823945-7.html?tag=mncol;title
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/04/more-wii-games-from-ea-thanks-to-low-development-costs/
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/4226/thq-studio-dev-costs-biggest-industry-issue
This isn't some prediction out of hate, it's a prediction using the data available. It's not due to the lack of players as there are plenty, but it's the cost that goes into the consoles that are beginning to take their toll. Consoles are not sustainable in their current business model and if continued it will mean the death of the console entirely, especially now that the PC and the casual market (much like the wii) have shown to be very profitable with less risk. You have to remember businesses don't make games as a fun hobby, they make them to make money. If another method proves more profitable and safe, then businesses will change sides without a second thought. Businesses have no "brand loyalty" to a platform, nor do they stay in one sector for long. The dynamics of the economy doesn't stay still. It's a cycle, businesses crowd in one newly found market until it' no longer worth it and move on which causes an economic crash. Sure there will be businesses to pick up the slack due to the newfound vacancy of the market but it's not the same as the clamoring before the economic crash.
Read up on it. Source? look around you. Consoles are fundamentally flawed in the idea. Sony, and the xbox are choking financially (basically they worked themselves into a corner). Look at how the generation of these consoles were lengthened due to high production costs of unleashing a new console. What does this mean? They need to adopt more PC ideas to increase longevity like selling upgrades, and other attachments. The high cost, and longer generation will spell out the death of consoles on the loss leader method of business. The death of consoles isn't by lack of players, its choking on costs. If selling consoles themselves can't make a profit they rely on games. On the developer's side however its absolute hell. Console tax, second hand market, and high development costs on top of that. If you want I can get the statistics to show the drop of the number of console games from the last generation to this one.
Here is the graph of games courtesy of Metacritic's game database.
Sixth Generation (1999-2006):
Ps2: 792 (out of 1609)
Xbox: 471 (out of 856)
Gamecube: 263 (out of 502)
Total Games: 2967.
Total games over 70%: 1526.
Seventh Generation (2005-present):
Ps3: 341 (out of 579)
Xbox 360: 479 (out of 924)
Wii: 242 (out of 649)
Total Games: 2152.
Total games over 70%: 1062.
See this graph? We are in year 6 of the console generation. The time frame for the last generation was 7 years, and yet the current generation is off by 856 games. Now you could say "higher complexity" of games, and that is the problem. You see when the Xbox and PS3 were first released they were sold at a loss, relying on console games to make up the difference. The Nintendo's wii however was the only console making a profit at that time. The reason? The Wii was cheaper to make, and has been known to be less advanced than its cousins. In short, the new tech doesn't fit into a small box like it used to. Standardization does not work anymore. The tech gets more complex, the cost becomes higher, and the profits decrease. You could say "oh but the console makes more money" but it isn't that way in the eyes of Activision, who makes 70% of their money from the PC, and portable PCs. Keep in mind this is the same "PC hating publisher" that was responsible for modern Warfare 2.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox_delivers_a_profit.html
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.203926-Kotick-Only-30-of-Activisions-Profits-Come-from-Consoles
Basically, the profits are being drained by many factors including manufacturing, tech level, mounting development costs, etc. Want a "source" on the mounting development costs too?
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/ubisoft-development-costs-to-double-next-gen
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.52799-News-Report-Says-Rising-Development-Costs-A-Nightmare
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9823945-7.html?tag=mncol;title
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/04/more-wii-games-from-ea-thanks-to-low-development-costs/
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/4226/thq-studio-dev-costs-biggest-industry-issue
This isn't some prediction out of hate, it's a prediction using the data available. It's not due to the lack of players as there are plenty, but it's the cost that goes into the consoles that are beginning to take their toll. Consoles are not sustainable in their current business model and if continued it will mean the death of the console entirely, especially now that the PC and the casual market (much like the wii) have shown to be very profitable with less risk. You have to remember businesses don't make games as a fun hobby, they make them to make money. If another method proves more profitable and safe, then businesses will change sides without a second thought. Businesses have no "brand loyalty" to a platform, nor do they stay in one sector for long. The dynamics of the economy doesn't stay still. It's a cycle, businesses crowd in one newly found market until it' no longer worth it and move on which causes an economic crash. Sure there will be businesses to pick up the slack due to the newfound vacancy of the market but it's not the same as the clamoring before the economic crash.
Not sure if I got my calculations right, but I'm thinking something like this:
Steamcast?
I have my doubts, but I'm excited at whatever's in the Steam cooker.
Steamcast?
I have my doubts, but I'm excited at whatever's in the Steam cooker.
For not even trying to update their console releases and still using the flimsy "MS won't let us!" excuse while other developers are able to get sizable updates/DLC out in a timely manner with little problem.Angry Juju said:
Congratulations Valve, you've built a PC.
As a serious point, I really don't understand who this would be aimed at. PC gamers have committed gaming computers. Console gamers have their consoles.
But maybe Valve are trying something new. Who knows?
Valve knows. That's who.
As a serious point, I really don't understand who this would be aimed at. PC gamers have committed gaming computers. Console gamers have their consoles.
But maybe Valve are trying something new. Who knows?
Valve knows. That's who.
They stopped being a strictly PC developer the second they brought the first Half-Life to the PS2 over a decade ago.Angry Juju said:
On the one hand, I really like the idea of a Steam console. On the other hand, I can't imagine them making a console that didn't work exactly like a normal gaming PC connected to a TV with an HDMI. That said, the majority of people who would be buying this would be 1) people like me who have never been able to afford a proper gaming PC but would buy this to support Valve's new direction, and 2) the small number of console gamers who actually know what Valve is that are convinced to switch over. In all honesty, I don't think it would sell exceptionally well. I mean, do most console gamers even know who Valve is? Most console players I've ever met have never even heard of Half-Life and have never played CS or the proper version of TF2, so the only thing Valve's name would have going for them is Left 4 Dead, that L4D expansion that walks like a sequel, and the two Portal games. Brand recognition will be important's, and unforunately I think EA or Activision would have better luck putting out a console than Valve.
It's not "Microsoft wont let us", it's Microsoft is forcing us to charge for it. If you've played TF2 lately, It's a totally different game than it was when it was released. Charging for an essential update would cause a divide in the already small community of players who still play TF2 on the Xbox. CD Projekt Red are in a similar position, they've already stated that all future DLC will be free for PC, but charged for Xbox. Why? Because Microsoft's policy wont allow for it.Gorilla Gunk said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.231292-Valve-Xbox-Live-Rules-are-a-Train-Wreck?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.315173-Theoretical-Witcher-2-DLC-Will-Be-Free-on-PC-But-Not-360
i dont get why PC gamers are so angry towards console gamers, consoles can handle the very latest games and you dont need to worry about having the correct RAM, processor or graphics card. you just buy a game put it in and play it. i dont care if you think that makes me stupid or lazy but to be honest after a days work id much rather put in a game and just play itTrilbyWill said:
No shit Sherlock.Waaghpowa said:
I never expected any of the DLC to be free. So far they've charged for all the L4D2 DLC, why would I think any future DLC would be different? It may not be fair but it's just something you have to accept.
I mean if that really is the only reason Valve haven't released any more DLC for any of their console releases then maybe somebody should go over to their offices and check to make sure there isn't a gas leak or something.
I am a console gamer, as well as a PC gamer. Personally, I play more PC games because I come home, turn on my computer, and can run Steam if I so wish. The countless number of 'so when do you think consoles will die out' threads support my first point.shootthebandit said:
this may be sitting next to my xbox one day.....and it shall be glorious....and ill have a gameing PC right next to them....and it shall be more glouriouser....
You totally miss the point "Watson". The TF2 update is an UPDATE, which changes the whole game. It isn't some add on content for a couple more maps. This change will effectively alter how the game as a whole plays. Charging for DLC extras is not the same as charging for a game changing update.Gorilla Gunk said:
In case you are unfamiliar with the terminology. Extras are exactly that, extras. They can also be described as optional or "you don't need to pay for this to enjoy the game". The update is an update, meaning it brings the game up to the current standard of the end product.
Microsoft policies state that an update can be a certain size before it needs to be charged for. The TF2 update was pretty huge on PC and breaks the limit for Live policies. Now Valve has said that they don't want to charge for a game changing update, and that's a bad thing? A company says they don't want to charge you for something that, not only enhances the product, but brings you up to the same level of quality that everyone is at is bad?
Shame on Valve for having some principles.
Not really. As they continue to shrink down technology and improve existing processor architecture, more and more devices become gaming devices. Cell phones or other small gadgets for example, with HDMI output could easily have the power of today's consoles by the end of this decade.GiantRaven said:
Eventually the PC will be left to do what it does best, offer dedicated hardware for better visuals, while the average gadget will offer more than enough display power for the average consumer.
The idea of owning a box that primarily just plays games becomes really silly at that point.
I was going to make a Pippin joke, but it seems that's already been done. Hmph.
I don't think it's going to go very far. But that's just me. There's already enough console developers out, no-one'll want to throw in their money for another.
I don't think it's going to go very far. But that's just me. There's already enough console developers out, no-one'll want to throw in their money for another.
Hrm...
Some nagging questions stem from this.
Another console in a seriously oversaturated market?
What is the point of creating a console for a company that works via digital distribution?
Why buy a console when you wont be owning what your buying (IE games)
Sorry. this is a very bad idea. Its bad for consumers in it pushes the negative precedents from steam into infiltrating one of the last areas still holding any sort of protection from it. It hurts the developers by further segmenting the games industry. It will hurt Valve/Steam as we know that every hardware manufacturer takes a grievous hit on the cost of the hardware with the promise of making it back on software and really valves first party titles are no where near strong enough or varied enough to support a console. It hurts retailers by hoarking up shelf space for a console without the promise of making it back on physical games where they make their money.
Really I think this is a rumor / fanboy wishful thinking because if a layperson can pinpoint those sorts of negatives off the top of their head im sure a professional involved in the industry could find hundreds more reasons why this idea is just plain stupid.
No, We do actually need another console. But what we need will NOT be made by steam because the new console we need is purely open source, anything else would be pointless because o we have too many consoles to deal with anyway.
EDIT: Ok, yeah this is nothing more than wishful thinking backed up with hypothetical and speculative evidence. I REALLY wish people would stop grasping at straws and acting as if it is inevitable fact. Seriously people when Gabe said something to the effect of if we find it important enough we would do hardware. How do you completely miss the first part saying right now we dont find it to be important enough to do, and skip right to assuming "we will do hardware" Aye eye Aye people, comprehend what you read and dont infer your own interpretation on someone elses words.
Some nagging questions stem from this.
Another console in a seriously oversaturated market?
What is the point of creating a console for a company that works via digital distribution?
Why buy a console when you wont be owning what your buying (IE games)
Sorry. this is a very bad idea. Its bad for consumers in it pushes the negative precedents from steam into infiltrating one of the last areas still holding any sort of protection from it. It hurts the developers by further segmenting the games industry. It will hurt Valve/Steam as we know that every hardware manufacturer takes a grievous hit on the cost of the hardware with the promise of making it back on software and really valves first party titles are no where near strong enough or varied enough to support a console. It hurts retailers by hoarking up shelf space for a console without the promise of making it back on physical games where they make their money.
Really I think this is a rumor / fanboy wishful thinking because if a layperson can pinpoint those sorts of negatives off the top of their head im sure a professional involved in the industry could find hundreds more reasons why this idea is just plain stupid.
No, We do actually need another console. But what we need will NOT be made by steam because the new console we need is purely open source, anything else would be pointless because o we have too many consoles to deal with anyway.
EDIT: Ok, yeah this is nothing more than wishful thinking backed up with hypothetical and speculative evidence. I REALLY wish people would stop grasping at straws and acting as if it is inevitable fact. Seriously people when Gabe said something to the effect of if we find it important enough we would do hardware. How do you completely miss the first part saying right now we dont find it to be important enough to do, and skip right to assuming "we will do hardware" Aye eye Aye people, comprehend what you read and dont infer your own interpretation on someone elses words.