Valve working on 'Steam Box' console

[Twilight_guy]

I severely doubt it, getting into the console business would be a risky move and there lack of experience or general renown in the console business since they are mostly PC developers would be a sever hindrance initially, making initial profits not look too good. Aside from that, have they done anything with hardware before? Its not as if software and hardware engineering experts are the same thing you know.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Valve's Steambox is the only upcoming or existing console development which has piqued my interest. Not so much because I am interested in purchasing it, but due to the implication it may have for the PC gaming market. Maybe the first step towards pc and console gaming merging into one single market...no more shitty ports, no childish bickering over the logo on your hardware, less technical stagnation due to aging fixed hardware.

I would say it is a risky venture, I wouldn't touch those Alienware "consoles which are really overpriced-underpowered PCs" with a ten foot clown pole. On the other hand, we are talking about Valve here, they must have something else up their sleeve.

 

[faefrost]

I think the only way for this to stand out in a market where the only real hardware difference between consoles and PCs is the ability to upgrade is for Valve to do something totally unique that hasn't been done before. Given their history with innovation, I'd say they've got a better shot at that than most.

/e bangs head!!!

Wow! I can't believe some of the vitriol in this thread. No one seems to get what it would appear that Valve is looking to do?

I may be misreading this, but based on all the available information it looks like Valve is seeking to create a small inexpensive somewhat standardized gaming PC that can function as a set top box for the TV. In other words IT'S A PC THAT YOU CAN USE WITH THE COST AND CONVENIENCE OF A CONSOLE! Gee best of both worlds? Wouldn't that be nice.

I think we all understand that that is what Valve is looking to do. But, having a compact pc that works with a tv doesnt seem possible without having locked in hardware, in which case, it now just acts like a console. And all I was saying is that for this to stand out, it can't just be a "small pc that sits on your tv", it needs to bring something totally new to the table.

Why not exactly?

And I ask this as someone with 10+ years as a pc product and development engineer. I can see how Valve using virtually off the shelf components could easily assemble such a device and produce it. You don't need to lock in the hardware in a proprietary way. Simply use a fairly fixed standard. Heck most PC manufacturers are already doing this in their business and server lines. It's only the gaming PC's that are still the overpriced wild west. The only trick is to build such things at a reasonable price point. I can see where they could get them under $500, but for a set top box it would be nice to get it under $300.

Software developers would fall all over themselves to have a predictable hardware standard within a PC format using Valve's Steam distribution channel.

I have never understood why Microsoft did not go this exact route with teh X-Box to begin with. (It was the competing concept within MS that lost.)

 

[Laughing Man]

April fools is less than a month away guys!

Look at the what they say it will do

- No fixed SDK, no licensing fees

Well right from the word go the consoles failed, MS and Sony both lose money on the consoles they sell they make the cash back through SDKs and licenses for developing games on the format, how EXACTLY will Valve make money on the console? Through Steam sales, why even bother they already have that in place, it's called ANY GAMING PC ON THE PLANET and the upside is Valve didn't have to pay the fee to get the PC in your house.

- Anyone's software will run on it

Really, Origin a rival content distribution service will run on it? That's just out and out dumb. How exactly will they ensure that anyone's software works on it? The only company that can do that just now is MS and they have had the best part of 3 decades to get it right and Windows can still be a bit iffy. Are Valve going to develop their own OS?

Someone's getting April Fools started early here gentlemen!

 

[McMarbles]

Not sure who's the target audience for this.

PC gamers? They already have PCs.

Console gamers? They likely don't care.

People who game on both? See my first comment.

Non-gamers? See my second.

 

[Valagetti]

*bangs head on keyboard*
No. No. No. No. No.
1. I think consoles are going to die out eventually. Probably soon.
2. Valve's main market are PC gamers, who have gaming PCs
3. We don't need more bloody consoles

Can you please go through the motions to which you have came to that conclusion? No I'm not sniping you, I do wish one day for a world where PC rules over the gaming universe.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Its interesting, but think it better if they do a link on PS3 or 360 to download games, although would have to allow offline gaming if possible. But like that it would allow people to play a lot of the older games.

Me, i wish they would have old games from C64 like Creatures or Turrican 2 or games on Amiga like Syndicate to download on Live or PSN. Games i loved playing and probably played more than any game i played on current gen consoles.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

*bangs head on keyboard*
No. No. No. No. No.
1. I think consoles are going to die out eventually. Probably soon.
2. Valve's main market are PC gamers, who have gaming PCs
3. We don't need more bloody consoles

Can you please go through the motions to which you have came to that conclusion? No I'm not sniping you, I do wish one day for a world where PC rules over the gaming universe.

Well, I see a lot of 'next gen might be last gen' threads, which do make decent points. If consoles only have one or two gens left, eventually they'll become totally redundant. plus, computer technology will advance to a point where making gaming PCs will become just as 'cheap' as buying a console (hell, my friend only spent £500 on his and it's decent).

 

[MorganL4]

I just don't see it happening..... Nothing against valve, it just doesn't seem like a good business decision to get into the console game at this point, I mean we probably have 2 MAYBE three more console gens left at this point tops.

 

[LilithSlave]

No I'm not sniping you, I do wish one day for a world where PC rules over the gaming universe.

I'm not sure I do. I grew up on and like my consoles. Back then, consoles had Mario, and computers, had Number Muncher(yes, that could be installed on DOS. I did it several times during my childhood). I always liked some things about computers better, mostly the DIY thing, made you feel like you had more power over the process. I don't see what people think was so great about DOS gaming. The selection of games was terrible in my opinion. I installed loads of DOS games back then, but I loved my NES games much more. The only thing I liked about them was that they were on the computer. A PC means PC, it's all about options and risk taking and putting your part into the puzzle. While consoles are about throwing you a box of sealed up quality and approval. Consoles are plush luxury of ease and quality, while PCs are a constant project. Meaning that both have their own appeal.

I'm no PC gamer. The only PC gamer thing about me is that I spend almost all my nerd time on the PC and I hate television.

And I'm also not sure I would like PC to take over. Even if it's more convenient to have all the games I play on the same system I do everything else on. Instead of the games I like moving to the PC platform, they might just die. If such a thing were to happen, I have the feeling that a lot of companies would rather just go down with the ship rather than hop onto Windows or Linux or Mac.

I also don't understand why so many people seem to be making the claim that "PC gaming will take over, console gaming is dead". It seems like wishful thinking on the part of PC gamers, to me. At least on most people who claim them.

If I could attempt to understand where such a claim might be otherwise coming from, though. As much as I hate to admit it, it seems like we might be moving in a bit of that direction as well. The graphics race is going to soon die. And soon enough, consoles with more power are going to become less and less necessary, making there less need and reason for more consoles. As they won't be able to do much other than add a new gimmick. And as new games won't have any higher graphics, and won't use much more computing power, several year old laptops will be able to play all the newest games. All of them. There's also the fact that consoles themselves are from an outdated time where home computing was expensive, but console gaming was an affordable alternative.

I'm personally betting that consoles will continue existing for a couple more decades at least, though. And console companies will just have to continue putting out different new gimmicks until they can't sustain it anymore, instead of more powerful hardware. Nintendo and probably Japanese companies in general, are not going down without a fight from their precious contribution to the gaming world. The console is a cultural gaming icon that Japan has always had a foot in. Probably one half of the entire gaming industry itself is Japan. Whereas Japan has never had a huge part of the PC gaming world. And most importantly, Nintendo.

Nintendo isn't just one of the biggest video game companies, they're one of the richest and most powerful software companies in the world. They essentially create Macintosh computers, but their Apples are for gaming, while Apples are for video editing. Nintendo is going to drop out of the hardware industry about as soon as Apple Inc. They're not going down without a fight. And for the console to die, you have to take out Nintendo. And Nintendo is NOT SEGA.

There might be some merit if it was just Sony and Microsoft. Microsoft is already in weird waters making consoles. But they're not alone, they're beside the staying power that is Nintendo.

Even if graphics and technology are moving in this direction, where PCs are more profitable than consoles, and more powerful hardware is becoming less and less useful for gaming, can you imagine Luigi's Mansion being on Steam anytime in the near future? I sure as heck cannot.

"Eventually", maybe. Soon? NO!

... why do my posts always end in a wall of text?

 

[halfeclipse]

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.

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.
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

No shit Sherlock.

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.

TF2 will probably be around 200 updates in now. Microsoft's rules would require Valve to charge for anything more substantial then a bugfix, or small tweak with a $.99 minimum price(Assuming there's no enforced price scaling for file size, which there probably is).They'll also require valve to pay THEM each time for the privilege of putting this update out over their service, which isn't cheap.

So on consumers side of the equation, you'd have little reason to buy them(Given TF2s low system requirements, most people will have a PC capable of running it, and if they don't they could upgrade their current one sufficiently for far less then the cost of the updates.) and valve would end up loosing a bunch of money providing support to the small community of players with more money then sense. Are you really that surprised they'd just take their ball and go home?

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I've seen people referencing that quote from Newell as potential proof of the existence of this console a fair bit, but if you actually go back and look at his full statement I don't think it exactly screams enthusiasm about his company doing so. What's more that was said not after any discussion about games consoles but rather after a discussion about wearable computers and similar crazy projects.

Not only that, but the statement in question was in response to a question specifically asking if they were going to sell hardware. It's not like Gabe brought up the idea. That's not to say that Valve isn't developing a console, it's just that this statement does not add any evidence to the idea.

OT: While it could be interesting to see what Valve could do with a console, I would rather have Valve make a gaming-centric operating system, similar to what someone else mentioned.

 

[ResonanceGames]

*snip*

Valve isn't manufacturing the device. That's why the article says they have hardware partners. Also, while Valve doesn't charge licensing fees, they do charge distribution fees -- to the tune of 30%. If Valve sells 200,000 of these things, and each gamer spends an average of $150 a year on games for the next five years, that's $45,000,000 in gross for Valve.

They didn't make the hardware, so they're only out R&D and advertisement money.

And both of those numbers are extremely conservative. If it's a million units and $200 a year, you're looking at $300,000,000.

To put it in perspective, the Vita sold over a million units in its first week of launch. Valve would have to screw up pretty hard to not make money on this thing.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I am a little confused. I this to be a console that lets you download and play console games the way steam does for computer games, or is it a "mini-computer" meant for just playing steam games?

Either way, to have the hardware required to run the games, it would have to be as expensive as a console. And why would you pay that price when you could just buy a console and have the ability to sell, trade, and rent games?

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

*bangs head on keyboard*
No. No. No. No. No.
1. I think consoles are going to die out eventually. Probably soon.
2. Valve's main market are PC gamers, who have gaming PCs
3. We don't need more bloody consoles

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 it

I'm running a Gaming PC that cost me $800 like 2 years ago to build, I have it on all the time because I run servers off of it, I get home from work, open steam and I have over 350 games sittin there, don't even hafta "put a game in" I just select what I wanna play and BAM it's there, shorter loading times, and better options than on a console, that combined with the HUGE selection of different controlers and periferals, and the fact that I can plug it into a TV if I want to play it like a console. also due to steam sales all those games, probably put me back like $1000-$1200 for over 350 games... Do the math lol.

Also getting a computer put together by someone else, hell I assembled my first PC when I was 13, I picked out all the parts ordered them off NCIX.com, and just put em together... Not hard at all, and as far as the Myth of how expensive it is to keep a PC up to date enough to run everything well, when you look at how long it takes consoles to come out, by the time they hit the market the parts in them are years out of date, to assemble a computer to run all the new console ported games, costs almost nothing, because you can get decent stuff at low cost that will run for YEARS before you have to upgrade and then, get more cheap parts and bam good for another 4-6 years, and guess what, your game library just GROWS AND GROWS, you don't hafta worry about waiting for some decent games to be released for your new hardware, or worry about limited distribution of hardware to retail locations, you can just order some new shit, put it together and use your old parts to frankenstein another rig into being and either give it to someone, sell it to someone, or just use it as a data server or something.

You're not stupid or lazy, just maybe, ill informed? Hell if you can put a shelving unit together you can assemble a PC, in most cases a shelving unit is HARDER to assemble than a PC, mainly because in a PC everything is either labeled on the parts, or ONLY FITS in a specific spot in a specific way. hell I built a random computer just to have a seperate box to watch stuff on my TV off of while I game, took me about 20 minutes from finding all the spare crap I had layin about, to attatchin it to my TV and watchin movies on Netflix...

Hell even with no knowledge of parts or anything just get a friend of yours who knows their shit to help you, or ask me to build you a rig, and gimme a price range, and I'll send you a list of what you need and where to get it cheap.

 

[theheroofaction]

so how many valve years will this take?
and whats that in normal years?

probably around 3 valve years, so we should have it by 2296.

In all seriousness though, does anyone remember the phantom? no?

Exactly my point.

 

[Laughing Man]

Valve isn't manufacturing the device. That's why the article says they have hardware partners. Also, while Valve doesn't charge licensing fees, they do charge distribution fees -- to the tune of 30%. If Valve sells 200,000 of these things, and each gamer spends an average of $150 a year on games for the next five years, that's $45,000,000 in gross for Valve.

They didn't make the hardware, so they're only out R&D and advertisement money.

And both of those numbers are extremely conservative. If it's a million units and $200 a year, you're looking at $300,000,000.

To put it in perspective, the Vita sold over a million units in its first week of launch. Valve would have to screw up pretty hard to not make money on this thing.

The article is mince, it is full of we heard and hear say and doesn't actually contain any real information just a lot of the usual Valve has said something so it must contain some deep secondary meaning as well as an awful lot of 'sources have said.'

Failing all that just look at what is being claimed of the 'Steambox' open source, no SDK, will run any ones software including rival's software distribution services and all on a PC spec that currently retails for £600 (That's the less powerful Alien x51 and not the Core i7, 8 gig nonsense being mentioned in the article.) that alone is just comically unreal.

I am claiming BS on this one until something more solid than 'a source said'

 

[Vigormortis]

No, now this is just wrong. One of the reasons I prefer consoles is that I don't have to deal with the crap that is Steam on them.

No offense, but how is the infrastructure and operating systems of consoles any different? Save for being far less open.

You buy your console, you can only play games made for that console. If you want to play offline, you better hope the game didn't ship broken so as to require a patch day 1. If you have any downloaded games, you need to go through a rather lengthy and annoying process to transfer those games to another console should you need to replace yours. (something you don't have to deal with on Steam)

I guess I just don't see where having Steam as your key gaming OS would be worse. If anything, it would allow for more options and greater flexibility.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

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.

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.
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

No shit Sherlock.

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.

TF2 will probably be around 200 updates in now. Microsoft's rules would require Valve to charge for anything more substantial then a bugfix, or small tweak with a $.99 minimum price(Assuming there's no enforced price scaling for file size, which there probably is).They'll also require valve to pay THEM each time for the privilege of putting this update out over their service, which isn't cheap.

So on consumers side of the equation, you'd have little reason to buy them(Given TF2s low system requirements, most people will have a PC capable of running it, and if they don't they could upgrade their current one sufficiently for far less then the cost of the updates.) and valve would end up loosing a bunch of money providing support to the small community of players with more money then sense. Are you really that surprised they'd just take their ball and go home?

Like I said, I don't care about TF2. Never mentioned TF2 in any of my posts about Valve so I'm really confused why everyone assumes that's what I'm talking about.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

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.
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

No shit Sherlock.

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.

Oh god no a company that doesn't want to charge you for a tiny portion of extra content. What is the world coming to? I think it would be fair to point out the day the threw up the first L4D2 DLC on XBL they made L4D2 the game the exact same price on Steam. As well as that they seem to find time to pay people for little community made mods so, while Valve may not be Jesus or perfect they seem to be doing pretty well when it comes to creating good rep for themselves.