Report: Valve Working on 'Steam Box' Game Console

Status
Not open for further replies.

esrever

Splendid
this thing is going to be overpriced and under performing. The i7 is pointless in pc gaming and they can cut price there massively by going with an i5 or even i3, nvidia graphics card would be interesting but usually the lower end AMD cards are much better performance/$$ and performance/watt so thats a stupid technical decision. I can't see this thing succeeding and anyone with any skills with google can put together a much better gaming PC for less money...
 

kukhri

Distinguished
Nov 24, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
While exciting, I hate to think of Valve entwining itself with console gaming. It's an all to common trend and it seems fewer PC centered titles are released every year.
 

aznplayer213

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2010
151
0
18,690
1
i would imagine that it wont be a super hit but it'll sell. if steam wants to sell the box there should be a kool incentive to buying the box.
 
$700 is to high for a console, in the past consoles that came or even exceeded this price didn't sell well except for Neo Geo (SNK) arcade systems and home consoles. This should have been built around a cheaper i5 or used a AMD apu for less. A less complex design is cheaper and in the long run better as it is less likely to fail.
 

cTs Corvette

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2011
214
0
18,710
19
Dumbest idea Valve has ever had. Their user base already has PC's, most of which are probably better than this, so I can't imagine who they intend their target market to be.
 
G

Guest

Guest
So Valve is a store front and hardware company instead of a video game studio, so no Half Life 3 but I can get a crappy HTPC for the living room.

Screw those guys I'll just use Origin until they deliver on HL3! Been waiting to dam long!
 

omega21xx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2012
863
0
19,060
26
Well, steam does take a small portion of cash from sales. They could go the way of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo because of this. Console makers sell consoles at a loss and expect to make up for it in game sales. (lower price, more buyers, more games sold) I agree however, that if the rumored specs are true... This will be a flop.
 

tyrusswon

Honorable
Mar 5, 2012
1
0
10,510
0
Come on don't compare Alienware with actual prices. The X51 which comes with a bottleneck of a GPU anyway is already 200$ over price...
 

raven2510

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2012
68
0
18,660
6
Uggg...Really? I hope they aren't serious about this. All we need is another console. I know that most games are multiplatform, but having to buy 4 different consoles to play games is just asinine.

I hope this never happens. This is a stupid idea, and its bound to fail. They will never get it at a cheap enough price to be profitable for them. Any new console needs to be under $500 new for consumers to even think about buying it.
 
oh come on guys. this is just dumb. Reporters are worthless these days. so a "tweet" from a random valve employee who built himself a micro PC for the living room 5 months ago and was just pushing portal 2 is now official specs for a "steam box"? it wouldn't use those parts and this is just stupid.

its MUCH more likely valve is working on a controller with swappable controls. You know, the thing they actually filed a patent for. And the only fact in this article. Than working on some horrid alienware clown that already exists.... They have steamworks on ps3 and are working on Xbox. this doesn't even make sense
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]kukhri[/nom]While exciting, I hate to think of Valve entwining itself with console gaming. It's an all to common trend and it seems fewer PC centered titles are released every year.[/citation]

um... you do realise that if this takes off, more pc centered games right?

[citation][nom]aznplayer213[/nom]i would imagine that it wont be a super hit but it'll sell. if steam wants to sell the box there should be a kool incentive to buying the box.[/citation]

older valve games for close to free if not free? i mean to a normal person, getting a system preloaded with what at least 5 games regarded best of the genre would be a major selling point.

[citation][nom]chuckydb[/nom]''onnboard Nvidia mobile gfx''Confirmation that this might be an underpowered, overpriced failure!!!!!![/citation]

lets assume high end mobile gpu... it can play damn near every game maxed so long as you aren't trying to force retarded settings on it... i play all my games at 1920x1080 windowed or 1920x1200 full screen basically maxed with shadow effects toned down on a 5770.

low, lets see here, an i7, no mention of a mobile version, so assume 250$+ a mobile gpu, im assuming a high end, so 200-300$, now motherboard, ram and such, i'm assuming 50 and 80 in that order, probably less if they get it bulk. and a psu, which if gotten geared for the hardware, could be cheaper than what we buy and just as good of quality, so ill assume 50$

so in total 630-730$, now realize that valve would put this out with plans on making that money back through subsidizing if they do sell it below cost, wall mart and such sell a game with 12-17$ profit margin, valve gets what 25-33% (selling it digitally lowers the cost allot, giving more to devs than store bought)

[citation][nom]cTs Corvette[/nom]Dumbest idea Valve has ever had. Their user base already has PC's, most of which are probably better than this, so I can't imagine who they intend their target market to be.[/citation]

people who dont have a gameing pc and would buy a gameing pc from alienware.

[citation][nom]omega21xx[/nom]Well, steam does take a small portion of cash from sales. They could go the way of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo because of this. Console makers sell consoles at a loss and expect to make up for it in game sales. (lower price, more buyers, more games sold) I agree however, that if the rumored specs are true... This will be a flop.[/citation]

no no no no no... thats later in the game, first run of consoles, at least sense xbox was to establish themselves, no matter the cost. second run was to get into homes no matter the cost. ps2 and ps3 both pushed a hardware standard, not even focused on games, just wanting to win the war, so it was less about games and more about getting the hardware out...

once all that crap was dont, than yea, it becomes more of a games make up for it.

[citation][nom]emperorxyz[/nom]As long as they continue to offer great PC services, more competition is always a good thing.[/citation]

not in gameing, due to the cost of about 10 million per extra platform. but seeing as this will most likely be just a valve branded pc, it wont add to the cost of games.

 

jryan388

Distinguished
Nov 1, 2009
1,341
0
19,460
57
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Dell+-+Inspiron+Desktop+-+4GB+Memory+-+500GB+Hard+Drive/2834128.p?id=1218354838953&skuId=2834128'
add in a Radeon 6670 and it's under $500
 

husker

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
1,062
96
19,360
0
I don't think people posting understand how much this idea could help PC gaming in the long run. Valve is introducing a "console-like" PC to help woo some console gamers back into the PC fold. This box could offer the convenience of a dedicated game console, in which games could be certified to run without various driver or other mis-matched hardware issues. Remember, this is Steam - the king of downloading and managing the software installed on a box. It would just work. You don't like this PC fine, then don't buy one. But somebody will, and it is likely to be console users. That would mean a larger PC gamer market. A larger PC market means more and better games developed to be played on a PC, rather than as a console port afterthought.
 

jahrasta311

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
47
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]$700 is to high for a console, in the past consoles that came or even exceeded this price didn't sell well except for Neo Geo (SNK) arcade systems and home consoles. This should have been built around a cheaper i5 or used a AMD apu for less. A less complex design is cheaper and in the long run better as it is less likely to fail.[/citation]
The Neo Geo sold well?
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]this thing is going to be overpriced and under performing. The i7 is pointless in pc gaming and they can cut price there massively by going with an i5 or even i3, nvidia graphics card would be interesting but usually the lower end AMD cards are much better performance/$$ and performance/watt so thats a stupid technical decision. I can't see this thing succeeding and anyone with any skills with google can put together a much better gaming PC for less money...[/citation]

While games that aren't CPU intensive don't take advantage of a Sandy Bridge i7 CPU, games that are, such as Battlefield 3 and World of Warcraft, do.

The trouble with most reviews, even high quality ones such as you find on Tomshardware and Anandtech.com, is that there is usually some kind of statement in the conclusion referring to overall statistics based on the games and other apps they used in testing. They aren't wrong, they are just limited, and don't apply to everyone.

If you play a large variety of games and don't care whether the ones that could use more CPU power get a lower frame rate, conclusions based on "overall" performance could well be just what you need, but for the dedicated World of Warcraft player (as an example), the person that could afford a better CPU would gain from the expense. If you play, as another example, Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 on the same computer, then Crysis 2 will perform about the same on an i5 or i7 Sandy Bridge, but Battlefield 3 will perform better on the i7.

If you really want the best performance from today's CPUs in games that can use more CPU, then Sandy Bridge-E is what you want, if you can afford the cost.

;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS