So Valve hates consoles, or at least the control-hungry attitude held by Microsoft. They've publicly called out Microsoft several times, stated they're not happy with the current state of the industry hardware-wise, etc. Valve really does not like Xbox or Microsoft. Go read up on Team Fortress 2's Xbox version and you'll find out the primary reason. Valve had some very harsh words for MS which I won't parrot here. They'd probably be "trolling."

Valve also has ridiculous amounts of money.

And very detailed statistics on the average PC hardware used for modern gaming.

And the biggest digital distribution service in gaming.

And very successful first-party games.

They could do it. For sure. Valve could make a console. Kind of. They could also make a "console" that uses Windows, meaning complete compatibility with their current library.

Future PC games could be sold with a "Steam Engine Compatible" label, which would mean certain performance standards at 1080p on said hardware.

Updated to newer PC hardware every three years.

Valve has recently been experimenting in dealing physical goods. A Razer Hydra controller can be ordered through Steam.

They're able to provide a product MS and Sony literally cannot compete with. Not with their current business models.

Realistic enough hardware / logistics details:

Quad-core AMD processor (phenom II probs. Cheapaer than Intel, good enough for gaming) -- maybe i5? Target ~$120-160
Mid-range card from ATI HD7000 series (these cards will likely have 768MB-1GB video RAM @ $200-250 retail)
6GB dual channel RAM. ($50 at wholesale / partner rates)
Runs Windows 7(or 8) 64-bit, but boots into a special fullscreen Steam UI by default.
640GB Hard Drive ($40 wholesale from a few different brands).
Includes a flash drive that, when booted, resets the machine to a factory state(very possible -- my laptop has this). (less than peanuts)
Hardware warranty voided on opening chassis, obviously.
If flash drive lost and messed up software-wise, low fee to fix that includes two-way shipping (Say, $50 from user).
All A/V ports required and proper for living room use, video/sound over HDMI being the primary route. (peanuts)
Includes functional, reliable, responsive (but feature bare to cut cost) wireless mouse+kb. (peanuts for a partner / wholesale, inexpensive retail)
Sleek chassis, yadda yadda.
Supports second hard drive via covered slot (slide-in).
No optical drive (They run THE digital distro service. They wouldn't have one.) Covered slot (slide-in).
Partner with ATI for optional automated driver updates (not a problem, since the hardware is a known constant.)

Valve could do this. They have every resource they need and enough power / industry pull. Microsoft would be forced to retool the next Xbox into basically the same thing in order to compete. Sony would possibly still have a product at the end of the day. Nintendo would probably be totally unaffected. It'd be out of left field, but it would turn the gaming industry on it's rear if it was priced at $600 or less.

$600 too much for a living room box? Remember that this would be a next-generation product compared to either console. Its only real competition on grounds of gaming experience would be the Wii U and the next Xbox / PS (Decent gaming rumor sites report that they will target current mid-high end PC hardware). Don't flame me for this. I know you might like your PS3 + 360, but they are not going to compete with new technology on quality grounds. That's just not how technology works. Technology from 2011 > technology from 2005.

And remember when the PS3 launch was announced? FIVE HUNDRED NINETY NINE US DOLLARS! It became a meme, but people did buy PS3s. $550 is a fairly realistic retail price for those parts, especially seeing as Valve would get partnership prices with hardware manufacturers (even better than wholesale). Of course, they might be forced to pay wholesale for Windows / use Windows 7 instead to keep costs down. Somehow I don't see Microsoft offering Valve the Windows rates they offer Dell / HP / etc so Valve can use it to create a competing platform.

I dunno, I think Valve has a chance to really clean up if they get into the set top box business, since I don't see Sony letting Valve actually do anything profitable with Steam on PS3. Letting owners of PC + PS3 chat with Steam friends on PS3? No problem. Letting Valve sell games via Steam on PS3? I really don't think so. It's clear from that venture that Valve wants a living room presence, but how far will they go? Does the industry even have room for four boxes? It'd be good for the industry, right? I can imagine publishers would flock to Valve's platform, given that there would be no used game market for it.

I already have a PC that's compatible with all Steam titles, why would I need a separate system locked to Steam?

Sounds interesting. :thumbsup:

You wouldn't. You're not the target audience. The purpose of the platform would be to steal market share from MS / Sony.

There's your problem right there. Valve wouldn't be able to justify buying a new console every three years to the Xbox/Playstation crowd, especially one that is running on current hardware.

I dunno, it just sounds like a downgraded PC for roughly the same price but with less versatility. I know that's pretty much the definition of a console, but consoles also have exclusive games to draw customers in.

I just don't see Valve developing hardware of their own though I can see them trying to take over future Playstations like they have for PC & I don't see that as a good thing for all.

I can't see this ever working, realistically. It's literally a PC, not figuratively like consoles are now, literally. Even coming with Windows 7 and customizable parts. And no optical drive standard? That's shooting yourself in the foot. Along with using an ATI card and relying on ATI drivers (sorry ATI, your drivers tend to be the svck) you're really setting yourself up for failure. Oh, and of course, voiding the warranty when opening the case...Beautiful. It's a gimped PC, not a console.

In fact, I can only think of one reason why this idea would even be brought up. A hatred for the 360. But that still doesn't make sense if you're going to use a Windows OS....

EDIT - I think I found it!

'If flash drive lost and messed up software-wise, low fee to fix that includes two-way shipping (Say, $50 from user).' - Your 360 RRoD and you went to get it repaired. They wanted to charge higher than you are willing to pay so you came up with this idea to justify not paying Microsoft!

They don't stop running the games though. They'd stop running the games on maximum. In order to use the Seam box branding, the developer could be required to include a default configuration for each version they advertise as supporting. A game might say "Steam Engine Recommended." Three years later its sequel might say "Steam Engine or equivalent PC required, Seam Engine 2 recommended." The third game in the series SIX years later might not run acceptably on the original, and would say, "Steam Engine 2 or equivalent PC required, Steam Engine 3 recommended."

So really it doesn't create a "GOTTA UPGRADE EVERY THREE YEARS!" It would actually run on the same six year cycle consoles do (or did/should). The people who want LATEST GREATEST VISUALS XXX can update every three, but people who don't want to spend that much are safe upgrading every 6.

But then Valve would be spending their money every three years to make consoles that may not turn enough of a profit, because most people would probably just skip a generation of consoles, like you said.

We need a jazzy name for the system...

The SteamBox?

Steam Station?

Gabe-tendo 64?

Steam Engine?

Make it bright orane and call it the orange box? Comes with The Orange Box preinstalled.

The purpose isn't to have people upgrade each time. The purpose is to make it impossible for Microsoft / Sony to compete on fair grounds with their current models and keep the product fresh on the market, bringing in new customers. Also, millions of new Steam accounts would come from this. It's the game sales on Steam Valve would get. No DVD drive remember? That leaves Steam / other DD the only way to get games unless you buy an optional drive and slide it in. Oh, and one of those delivery systems is pre-installed and starts full screen when the system does.

Honestly, I'd love to see it, but it seems like it would be a pretty big risk for Valve if it didn't catch on, which leads me to believe they wouldn't attempt it.

Wasn't Steam a big risk? Nobody thought it would take off when it first launched with HL2.

If anything this is more realistic. It's tapping into an already known market with a better product + cheaper games.



If you gave MS a choice between selling Valve steady stream of Windows licenses or having a market viable console, which would they pick?

Even though MS still gets money, I'm sure they'd rather have the Xbox 3 be a thing than sell a bunch of extra copies of Windows.

By paying MS for Windows licenses...

Not to mention once someone starts complaining about how their Steam compatible system can't play X it's all downhill from there.

wouldn't a WINE-based OS be a better choice?

Try to play Counter-Strike: Source in WINE.

Now imagine making Skyrim work.

WINE would defeat the purpose by taking away all of the usability and making each game a nightmare (often with bad performance / visual bugs even when it does run -- thus lower settings).

Well, there's only 1 (2) OS that incorporates part of Wine into the actual OS: ReactOS, which is in early alpha still. There's also the Linux Unified Kernel, but that's a whole different beast.

Not to mention that just makes compatibility even a different problem, and generally for best compatibility, Wine requires Windows binaries that can only be legally used if you have a Windows license.


If you're going to try and Dis Wine, you should at least choose a title that doesn't work near perfectly in Wine

Not to mention your whole idea of using Windows is self-defeating for numerous reasons (You cannot guarantee that game X will work on it, there's no artificial restrictions that can be put in place to keep games that require superior specs from running on it, all optimization is lost especially if different models are offered, only Valve would have the desire to make games optimized for the system, paying for a Windows license, etc)

Valve would not do this. There not that stupid. But I see where your getting at

Wait. CS:S runs in Wine? I had to drop the res to 800x600 or below to avoid CTDs after 2 minutes.

It would actually give publishers a reasonable hardware target for their games, and a big stamp advertising, "Hey! Works on Steam Engine!" Obviously, Valve could have a sticker on the front of the unit that says "Games without Steam Engine badge are not guaranteed to work -- consult with friends or attempt at your own risk." There are ways around pretty much all of it. Valve already has all kinds of little virtual "stickers" they put on game product pages already (third party DRM, gamepad support, etc). This could just be another one of those. Games known not to work might have Steam warn you if you try to buy it with the "console."

Wine is always changing and CS:S reached http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=3731

You of course have to know how to follow instructions, otherwise use http://www.playonlinux.com/en/ or http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxgames/


Hardly. Not to mention it will piss every custom builder off by the limitation it imposes. Optimization still is a problem as well as limiting the console from further releases that are beyond the power of the machine.


Which'll only succeed in pissing people off. The advantage of consoles is it "just works". Console users don't want to deal with stickers, they don't want to deal with compatibility or any of that junk. It also, as already mentioned, alienates the actual PC gamer crowd.

Am I the only person who thought of a valve amplifier when reading this? I was imagining a huge Marshall stack!

http://guake.org/screenshots/2

Except Steam-y instead of Quake-y, obviously.

Really? Stickers and badges are easy to understand, and wouldn't intrude on anyone trying to play the game on a traditional custom system. Just because Skyrim has the "360 pad support" badge on Steam does that mean that you can't use a mouse and keyboard? Does that badge ruin Skyrim for you? No.

Also, how do console players know the game will work in their machine? Oh wait. It's a label at the top of the box that says "360" or "PS3." How do they know if it supports surround / HD 1080p? Playstation move? PSN? Does it require the paid Xbox LIVE? Back of the box. This is taking the ideas already used in those markets and applying them in a slightly different way, nothing more. How many players split screen? Back of the box.

I can buy any game for any given console and it'll work on any version of that console.

Your "console" (which I might add, it isn't a console by definition) does not have this ability. You can search for your "steam games" and the ones that will work will be right next to the ones that don't. Not it may work on your Steam "console", but someone else may get better performance then you. Or, the reverse, because of your Steam "console" now other PC users get worse performance.

It's the same as modular console, it's just a bad idea. and someone will get the short end of the stick due to implementing it, always.


Now, on the other hand, if Valve were to team up with Asus to produce some gaming laptop and have it ship by default with Steam an a Steam game or two, that makes sense, but shipping a Windows PC as a console is just dumb and only limits and breaks things.