Really? So I can buy a Playstation 3 game, put it in my PS2, and it works? Steam Engine 1/2 would be roughly equivalent to PS2 / PS3 relationship-wise, only with some degree of forward compatibility due to scalable games (about 5 years worth). Honestly, nobody would lose except MS / Sony. And random, wanton incompatibility does not happen like that. Proper hardware with no crazy software problems will run pretty much any game.

And what does it matter if someone gets better performance on other machines? If the game is certified for the machine, that means it includes a config for that specific version of Valve's platform that gets a minimum average of a certain framerate at 1080p. Do Xbox users constantly scream "OMG PC GAMERS HAVE BETTER FPS AND GRAPHICS! IM MAD!" at their screens while playing Skyrim or something? Valve controls the certification and can adjust any costs on the fly to attract publishers.

And no, this wouldn't break anything or make PC gaming worse. If anything it would increase the market share and force Sony / MS to keep up. As it is a lot of PC games are already "Just better resolution, AA, and performance." It'd make things better. It would also be a big win for game publishers. Higher % from each sale, no $7-8 console fee, and most importantly no used market, which a lot of publishers are upset about. EA puts "online passes" on all their games now to curb used game sales.

If Valve starts making consoles I will personally run for Congress just so that I can make laws outlawing Valve.

Not a big risk, since they are more profitable than Microsoft per employee.

Valve has lotz of moneys :nod:


Steam didn't launch with HL2

It was created as an automatic update service for Counter-Strike so make sure that everyone was running the same version of the game.

Yeah, I suppose the servers were major deals then. But HL2 is what got it into the public eye and onto many, many gaming PCs.

I don't think you realize how popular the original Counter-Strike was

Yep, after Skyrim it's http://store.steampowered.com/stats/, ahead of the likes of MW3, CS:S, and TF2.

It's been in the top 5 most played games on Steam for as long as I can remember.

Of course Steam has evolved far beyond it's original purpose but I still think that Counter-Strike is the reason for it's initial popularity.

HL2 helped of course but there are a lot more people who play CS than HL2.

HL2: 12 Million copies sold
CS: 25 Million copies sold

Played HL2, I think. The multiplayer was more of an afterthought. I mean, it was a must-have single-player game in its day and one of the most anticipated shooters of all time. And yeah, I understand the popularity of Counter-Strike / DoTA / etc. Though I wasn't aware Steam existed in a big way before HL2.

HL2's launch did completely cripple the service for a week.

Referring to the machine, it would have the most / best launch titles of any modern platform to be sure (and probably include a few older Valve games pre-installed). That's something.

Microsoft most certainly wouldn't lose. They've been trying to revitalize the PC gaming market for a while because there is a large amount of profit for them in it. Also I'm not talking steam engine here, but the PC game market as a whole. No matter how you dress it up, you are selling gaming PCs, not consoles, and people will want them to behave as such. (not to mention if you think that steam engine 1 and two are roughly equivalent to the difference between the PS2 and the PS3, you have no idea what you are talking about). Also if you think that proper hardware can run pretty much any game you are dead wrong, the amount of bad PC ports is enough to fill the Long Beach Harbor.


You're not getting it: what you are asking is for more PC fragmentation, and that's going to piss people off. Rather than make the PC market better for all it'll make it great for those that buy Steam's PC and horrible for everyone else for the games optimized for those PCs. Or worse: due to the optomization it'll effectively kill off AMD CPUs/GPUs/Nvidia GPUs due to the poor performance on those due to the optimization done on the Steam, creating a virtual monopoly which isn't good for the PC market in general, and definitely not good for the PC gaming market.


I'm pretty certain it would.


It definitely wouldn't force MS to keep up, they'd be thrilled. It'd make DX have more leverage again, only good for them.


That's another good point I forgot about: the reason for entering the console market is to advance your share AND to get revenue only you can earn. Your Steam PC does neither of those (since it's just based on Windows).

Like I said: a joint venture with a PC maker to make gaming computers that pre-ship with Steam is a great way to increase their market penetration, but your idea is just bad as I see it.

Talking of fragmentation, thinking of the thriving games industry 30 years ago leaves me scratching my head as to why there're so many porting "difficulties" these days: sure, games were simpler then, but development shops were also much smaller and worked to shorter timescales, and architectures were often significantly different: but that didn't stop the same game appearing on, say, the BBC Micro, Dragon 32 and Sinclair Spectrum, in spite of them having different CPUs and completely different sound, video and input hardware. Plenty of titles were released on a broader range of platforms than just those three, too. Okay, more often than not a port simply didn't happen, but either way, I don't recall anyone making a huge song and dance about it.

Simple solution. Don't. Certify. Bad. Ports. Valve already tests every game they let on Steam (it's in the partnership FAQ). Publishers get punished for ports that don't work. Assuming penetration, whole PC market benefits. If Valve's set-top PC gets good market share publishers would be incentivized to make better ports. And yes, it would force the consoles to keep up. Their only strength is being designed to interface with A/V equipment like TVs and receivers. That's literally it. Everything else they have is inferior, and both Sony / MS engage in a lot of abusive business practices that would be illegal in any other industry (many of which ARE illegal in the traditional software industry). Back in the early 2000s Microsoft tried to pay / otherwise bribe developers into keeping their programs on Windows and off of Mac OS / Linux / Unix. Replace a few words with "games," "Xbox," and "PS3 / PC" and it almost feels like a lot of the current practices will be illegal in a decade or two. Gamers don't want to pay MS $50 a year for LIVE. If another box comes out with far superior visuals + auxiliary capabilities and free, robust online with a few games bundled(Orange Box seems likely) it's going to sell.

Also, Microsoft hates PC gaming. They take active steps to cripple it and put Xbox forward. At the same time they don't want to lose it to OpenGL / Linux / Mac, so they do the bare minimum demanded by gamers and ATI / NVIDIA. Microsoft cannot profit from or control PC gaming beyond sales of Windows and their low DirectX licensing fees (if there even are any). That's literally their only benefit from it. Every time Microsoft tries to take control of PC gaming the market spits it back in their face (GFWL anyone? Most popular Fallout 3 mod disables it). If Microsoft really wanted PC gaming to exist, the Skyrim DLC would only be delayed on PS3. There are even rumors Microsoft pays developers to intentionally cripple PC versions (Maximum texture size, no DX10 / 11 support, has to be 32-bit, etc), but those can't quite be proven.

And the Steam box would use bare, reference graphics parts that run on the mainstream ATI drivers. Not some weird franken-chip nightmare like Microsoft and Sony use. Along with the three upgrade year cycle it would honestly improve the situation. I can guarantee you Skyrim would look better on PC if this box launched last year with a 5770 or 6850.

Honestly, industry needs a living room PC for its own good. The business practices of MS and Sony are abusive / anti-competitive / unethical. In any industry other than video games both companies would be neck-deep in fines. Proper living room / long-distance PC gaming would go a long way.

The great thing about the PC platform is it doesn't need certification. Microsoft never bribed companies to keep Windows software off other platforms (though they did do unfair tactics to basically keep Linux PCs off the market by raising the price of Windows to companies that sold Linux PCs)


Erm, no. DX gives MS a huge advantage and unlike regular consumers gamers are more likely to upgrade end generate profits.


Except all the already stated problems (Valve won't be able to get prices lower than other PC makers, and certainly not as low as those "frankenchip neightmares" MS and Sony get. Valve has no way to enforce the upgrade due to not having a real way to limit what the games run on since they aren't making their own console just shipping a PC).


There already have been livingroom PCs: they all fail because you can't get the price down low enough to be competitive with consoles, the PC games cannot be optimized, and many other problems. You cannot treat a PC like a console and when you try you fail and lose many of the advantages of the PC platform.

Name me another example of a large company making a set-top box intended for gaming from a distance.

AFAIK those boxes (HTPCs) are used for movies / music / Netflix / etc.

No big-name companies, but it has been done before. I'm not talking about an HTPC, just like you aren't talking about a set-top-box (that thing would have serious heat problems in such a small form factor)

An engineering challenge not within the capabilities of a certain company this generation ...

If you are going to go that far you're going to have to go with proprietary hardware and at which point why are you using Windows?

At which point it becomes just another console being released by Valve rather than the bastardization of a gaming PC and all the problems I've listed go away.

(BTW: this is why consoles end up the way they do: weaker hardware can be supplemented by optimization and allow for smaller form factors, less power requirements, and less heat production)

Until the console releases with a 50% failure rate due to heat issues, of course, at which point it's just a bad PC with extra corporate control and restrictions.

What people need is an average PC with no hard control and limited warranty restrictions. From a big company with the backing to get publishers.