Steam Machine - PC price - Does much less functionality and plays less games than your PC (news / discussion)

[GoodBytes]

Polygon reports that Steam machine is actually a poor purchase decision, as the steam machine cost the price of a gaming PC, but can't do as much, and the library of games is very limited. This is a challenge for Valve, that Polygon points, out that will be difficult to market for them. Compact and ultra quiet (still air cooled) PC's can be made with great ease, and nothing stops any gamer from simply connecting a HDMI cable to their PC and use a controller of their choice wired or wireless, like the XBox 360 controller.

Such purchase is well under 100$, even if you don't do any research for the lowest price (assuming of course you don't end up with a Monster-Cable HDMI cable).

In the article Polygon points out:

 

The idea of an affordable PC that’s inside a console form factor, complete with an interesting controller, has merit. But everyone involved is doing a dismal job of explaining those merits to the press or consumers.

Valve didn’t give us a reason to care

Let’s take a look at the Steam Machines that are being shown at CES, and we’ll try to find some vision to the product line. Some are shaped like consoles, other look like standard computers, and pricing is all over the board.

Some of these systems are competitive with the pricing of the Xbox One, but the PlayStation 4’s $400 sticker is going to be much harder to hit, especially since so many options means that no one will be able to take advantage of true economy of scale. The idea that any of those can match the three million units of the Xbox One sold to date is… quaint.

This is mostly due to the fact that the SteamOS has only just launched, and it can hardly compete with the game library you’ll find on Windows. SteamOS itself, and this fact was somewhat glossed over during the press conference, is based on Linux, and only a percentage of the current Steam library is currently compatible.

In addition they point out that games won't come... as the market isn't there.

If you have used SteamOS and have a good answer, I'll be watching the comments. Newell may brag about the 65 million users Steam enjoys, but many of the games that brought those players to the platform won't run on SteamOS unless Linux compatibility is added by the developer. Which won't happen until the market is bigger. Which won't happen until more games are added. You see the issue.

Gamers prefer Windows, due to overclock software available, the great library of high quality, full features, easy to use software that Windows library provides. And of course, making a Linux version isn't a mouse click, meaning that making a version for Linux is a very costly investment, potentially several million dollars, for a tiny market share, that even if all purchased the game it wont make up for the cost to make the Linux version. The more advance the game is, the harder it is to make a Linux version for it, especially if it's not in the plans since day 1.

It must also be noted that many games uses other store networks, such as UPlay, or Origin. Meaning most if not all Ubisoft and EA games coming up or current out won't be able to be played on a Steam Machine, but would otherwise be able to if you just connected your PC to the TV with Windows.

As they also note, that the low cost Steam machine which are around the price of the PS4 or XBox One, provides the same performance. Why play a game on it with the same or inferior graphics than the PS4 or XBox One, when you can play the same game on those console, and enjoy exclusive titles, and optimized controls, let alone more games.

 

I don’t just want to play Battlefield 4 at the fidelity the PlayStation 4 offers, I also want to be able to try early access PC hits like Starbound, as well as something as niche as the latest Twine game on a fully-functional browser. These systems should play every game available on Steam, with no exceptions, and do everything a standard computer can do in a form factor and price that puts pressure on consoles.

Source and full article: http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/7/5283832/valves-linux-steam-machine-plays-fewer-games-than-your-PC

One thing is not presented is Nvidia Shield. If you have an Nvidia graphic card, it could be a better choice, as you get to enjoy all games, on your TV and you have a standard controller.

What do you think of all this?

If Valve made Half-Life 3 exclusive for Steam Machine or SteamOS, would you go through the headache of installing the OS, or open your wallet and buy a Steam Machine just for it?

Will you be getting a Steam Machine? If so, why?

[Thermite]

I'd install the OS, but i'm not going to buy one because dual booting works fine. I also know how to completely remove the Linux OS and revert back to just windows if I need to.

[Sidiox]

Id do a dual boot, the money those machines cost is jsut too much. I might just run an HDMI cable to my TV, is much handier. THe price is just such a problem for those machines. More and more games are getting Linux compatibilty and Valve has powers so I don't think that is such a problem.... I have faith, but the prices need to drop, they should have made 1 official machine with custom hardware that was dirt cheap but not usable as dual boot, pure gaming, then there is potential. Now all the manufacturers are just builiding small and strong pc's, they can't make them cheap cuz it still uses normal pc parts, as long as they can double as a pc the prices can't go down

[MatheusSanzo]

Yes, we already know that but we want them because of reasons.

[M-ursu]

Click the picture to see it well.

[MatheusSanzo]

Click the picture to see it well.

What's up with all the titans in there?

[Astralify]

I still think that the "steam machine" is absolutely pointless.

[Humbug]

It can do everything a windows PC does.... if you install windows on it, LOL.

 

I fully agree that steam machines are a hard sell now.

On the flipside if we want to imrove the linux ecosystem we have to start somewhere and this is a good opportunity to do that. Otherwise it's just a vicious cycle; Gamers say no to linux because there are fewer games and developers say no to Linux because there are fewer gamers. Somebody has to try and break that cycle...

[GoodBytes]

It's actually more than that. Linux doesn't have any much help for developing software under Linux. Finding devs who have knowledge for Linux based OS development is rare, and therefor costly. The majority of new developers are not interested in Linux development due to the lack of tools, resources (newly graduate needs a lot of resources to get started in their field, in addition they need mentoring. School only makes you learn so much, and mostly about background, and thought process). Also, while you have gamers claim that they want Linux, Linux has a lot of their software in a very inferior version or non existent with no proper replacement.

It's not an easy switch.

[Scionyde]

I might take a stab at SteamOS, and I'll probably buy a controller. I most likely won't be buying a Steam Machine, but apparently, we aren't the target audience for it. Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing a compelling reason why console gamers will want one. But then again, I don't have the marketing information companies like Valve must have, and Valve *did* get a bunch of manufacturers to get on board with this - maybe it isn't such a hard sell? No idea.

 

A storefront for digitally distributed games seemed like a hard sell, but after a few years Steam became a huge hit. Maybe Valve is just playing the long game again.

[GoodBytes]

Valve got support.. because all the manufacture did is have the same computer they normally sale, but with SteamOS instead of Windows. So if they don't sale, they can just format and install Windows, and sale that.

So they are taking the chance that it will sale, especially that the risk is minimal.

[Blingy]

The game portofolio for Linux has to start at some point. Better now than never.

[jksluv]

Another stupid article.(no offense to OP. Just from the source)

Steam Machine is A PC. I mean, its designed to install and play steamOS. But it also offers multi OS installation. So comparing "Steam Machine" and a "PC" doesnt make sense. They are the same. You can install SteamOS on a regular PC. Also you can install Windows/linux on Steam Machine. So uhh..

[Inkz]

Although it is made by Valve I will still not purchase one. I agree, I love my PC and all of its features. But what I do like is that it may introduce more people to the PC who are used to consoles. Hopefully the good people.

[GoodBytes]

Another stupid article.(no offense to OP. Just from the source)

Steam Machine is A PC. I mean, its designed to install and play steamOS. But it also offers multi OS installation. So comparing "Steam Machine" and a "PC" doesnt make sense. They are the same. You can install SteamOS on a regular PC. Also you can install Windows/linux on Steam Machine. So uhh..

It continues to make sense... well that its a poor purchase decision.

If you install Windows it, then it's another gaming PC... just plug your PC to your TV. You can build a small computer all by keeping performance on your side. You might lose a bit of overclock-ability compared to a full size ATX board (at worst), but it's still better than none with these OEMs systems.

See, if it was a subsidized system, where it would be cheaper to get that than making your own, then yea, I could see it working. But it's not.

[EChondo]

Personally I'd buy a Steam machine. Why you may ask? Because of a couple reasons.

 

1. Easy to carry around(depending on which one you buy)

2. Customizable

3. Steam has great streaming abilities and Family Sharing

4. More and more games are coming to Linux each month

5. It's a nice set top box to utilize whatever you want

 

Sure right now there's not a lot going for it, but if Steam can get a Netflix and Hulu app and have a great integrated web browser that can do HTML as well as flash for YouTube and whatnot, then it'll be a nice multimedia machine. Since it's open you can more than likely install a custom OS that can be used for emulation.

 

This is a starting point for something that can be huge. If more and more people jump onto this then Linux can and will take off. I know many people have said that previous years were "The Year of Linux", but with something this big coming to market, I really do believe this could be "The Year of Linux", if not this year, then 2015, but again that all depends on adoption rates.

[deathjester]

Steam machines are for people that can't build a PC. We aren't supposed to get one. Why would we bother.

 

Still better then a "Dell" or a console.

 

As far as Windows? Direct X sucks. The only reason games aren't also native OpenGL is MS needing a monopoly to force upgrades of OS's running the same kernel. If you think these companies don't get kickbacks to not make native OpenGL ports you are naive.

 

If game makers can skip the middle man (retail and physical media) and OpenGL ports will make them more money selling them on a steam box, then they can make being MS's whipping boy? They will do it. Many games are already ported to OpenGL (Mac). They are wasting time with Direct X anyways. 

 

Add to that Steambox prevents piracy. Game makers have every reason to want it to succeed and to make native OpenGL ports from here on out.

 

I would be more worried about MS stock then worrying about Steambox.

[bcredeur97]

steam OS should of been developer access only for the first year. that way devs could write their games for linux. right now there is no point in buying a steam machine. Not enough stuff to go along with it.

[GoodBytes]

Steam machines are for people that can't build a PC. We aren't supposed to get one. Why would we bother.

 

Still better then a "Dell" or a console.

If you can't build a PC, then you'll buy a Dell, Lenovo, Alienware or HP PC.

You'll gladly pay the premium price for service, 1 person to call for support or repair, and pre-build for you. Those can be attached to your TV as well.

If it's gaming only, then you would get a WiiU, PS4 or XBox One or a combination of them, and not only enjoy more games, but more optimized gaming experience (so better visuals and/or frame rate for the hardware you have), and you have optimized controls for the console controller.

As far as Windows? Direct X sucks. The only reason games aren't also native OpenGL is MS needing a monopoly to force upgrades of OS's running the same kernel. If you think these companies don't get kickbacks to not make native OpenGL ports you are naive.

This is completely false. If developers wants to develop on OpenGL, NOTHING stops them from going so.

DirectX is chosen because of multiple reason. Some of them are:

-> DirectX has more resources than OpenGL. It is more welcoming to develop and get started with DirectX than OpenGL as well.

-> DirectX shaders can be debugged. OpenGL... not at all. You can use gDEBugger.. but it's primitive at best.

-> gDEBugger used to be paid for the longest time. It was costly and not integrated to any IDE environment.

-> AMD and Nvidia have developed very powerful DirectX debugging tools complete with GPU deep analysis. In the case of Nvidia, it integrates with Visual Studio.

-> DirectX usually, tends to develop at a faster paste than OpenGL.

-> Microsoft provide support (engineers of the DirectX team working with companies and studios (you have to pay of course, but it's something)) OpenGL, you have none of that. You are on your own.

-> DirectX is a regroupement of low level API. OpenGL does only graphics. DirectX has: Direct3D, Direct2D, Xinput, DirectSound, and more. Everything you need in 1 structure, working the same way, similar API, making coding easier.

 

Now if you want a run down of a comparison of both, OpenGL vs DirectX (well Direct3D), they are essentially 2 different school of thought. Wikipedia has a nice article on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D

The reason why you say that DirectX sucks, is mot likely because of AMD and Mantle. Well Mantle is nothing more than empty promises until it's delivered. But ignoring that, what AMD solves with Mantle is not the main problem that cost the most performance. Granted things cold be improved, but OpenGL isn't better. It difficult to talk about mantle because information is slim to none about it.

If game makers can skip the middle man (retail and physical media) and OpenGL ports will make them more money selling them on a steam box, then they can make being MS's whipping boy? They will do it. Many games are already ported to OpenGL (Mac). They are wasting time with Direct X anyways.

 

Valve is the middle man, and Windows App Store fees are less than Valves one. Hence why Valve is angry and putting hate on Windows 8, because it's successful, and Microsoft adds one day a gaming infrastructure on it, Steam is gone, if it doesn't adapt. But they will, so it will be loss of revenue.

Add to that Steambox prevents piracy. Game makers have every reason to want it to succeed and to make native OpenGL ports from here on out.

 

Steam DRM is easily by-passed. That is why nearly all games put their own additional DRM on it.

[OBEYSQUIRREL]

One of my friends is console guy, and one of the reasons he is interested in the steam machine is portability. He stays like 4 days with his mom then 3 with his dad every week, so he likes his console for the ease of use and travel. IMO a steam machine would be better than a gaming laptop and a console, and allow him to experience pc gaming at the same time. I think there is a market for it, but right now its not fleshed out yet. When they start becoming more mainstream and people with no pc knowledge can say, "hey, these graphics look way better than my xbox/playstation" then I think that will be the time that it becomes a serious product. As of right now most people either don't know about it, and the ones who do are enthusiasts like us who can find great deals and build and customize ourselves and get a way better experience by ourselves.

[GoodBytes]

But you can build a small portable computer, and OEMs already had small gaming systems.

The current models out now, are models that already exists just SteamOS instead of Windows.

[theroflcopta]

The library is small since it is linux based but gaben and valve are making great strides in porting games over to linux from windows.

 

Yes the pricing is skewed but honestly at this point a lot of companies don't know what kind of market to cater to at this point. So a lot will fail but many will rise up and set an example for steam machines to run.

 

And we can hope performance on many of these machines will be given a healthy boost once mantel comes out. These machines do have the chance to blow consoles out of the water. But what doesn't help are nay sayers who Don't seem to understand these are still very early stages of development and a lot of things are subject to change.

[TheNinjaNextDor]

I see a lot of dual boot comments but remember that this is not aimed at people like us who will do that. No half converted peasent will dual boot windows. But also that can be good because we may see this as pointless because we can use a splitter and connect it to our PC but think about if you were a hardcore peasent. You think console is best so you get a steam machine. You dont know this crazy dual boot or spli-ter thing that we speak of. You may find that the steam machine is awesome right next to your XB1. All im saying is look at it like you dont already have a gaming PC. We just need to help this along so Linux gets supported more and we can use it too

[Nallown]

Does the system have less functionality may I ask? or does the OS have less functionalities? Is it any different from a PC? Well my answer is no, yes, no and let me explain why.

Steam machine itself uses regular desktop hardware which means that it is normal computer but the only thing which is limiting it is the OS. Steam OS is just another port of debian with some stock software added/removed to make it function better for gaming. Since it's a regular computer with a linux distro installed means that you're able to install pretty much any OS on it and also like I mentioned before steam machine is just another pre built computer in a small form factor and with custom OS installed on it by default  so it's a normal computer. Everything you can do on a regular computer can be done on the steam machine the only thing that is currently holding it back is the OS and nothing else, any OS can be installed just like on your computer.

 

Would I buy a steam machine? no, why?

steam machine is a pre built computer and I'd rather build my own computer since the current steam machines have exaggerated hardware specs e.g. 16gb ram, that won't really increase gaming experience on a linux distro I myself would install 4gb ram since it's meant to be treated as a gaming console so there won't be any hardcore rendering going on other then drawing the game models/sprites and most of this will be done through the GPU, vram anyway. You might wonder why they have these exaggerated hardware anyway? well I believe that it's a marketing term, since valve is trying to target the steam machine at regular users who don't have allot of advance IT experience they won't understand that gaming won't be making use of all the available ram, they more then likely would believe that games would use all the ram available and that is if they know what ram is.

[Jasmin]

I'd say that this is yet another product marketed towards gamers who refrain from gaining any knowledge on pc hardware. But someone, somehow thought that it would be great to create an image that this is supposed to compete with consoles. It is still MUCH harder to use than a 400$ gamebox (dumb people out), MUCH more expensive than a 400$ gamebox, especially given the price premium one have to pay for a steam sticker (poorer people out), and the more tech savy people can just load SOS (oh my...) as a 2nd system, if it reallly gives this amazing perfomance boost steam bragged about (hardware enthusiasts out). Who is going to buy it apart from press (who gets free samples btw)...?