Valve developing steam box console

Andy!!

Limericks wrote: »

Yes and if they don't then the steambox will not be very impressive will it?

I am sure valve have some sort of agreement with the more popular dev's to port their games and the rest will trickle in afterwards.

Your statement answered your question.

aN.Droid

Andy!! wrote: »

Your statement answered your question.

No it didn't. Having games from the more popular devs won't be enough because that will only account for about 5-10% at most of the steam library.

Not very impressive at all.

Dyr

Andy!! wrote: »

It's the responsibility of the individual developer to provide the port, not Valves.

And therein lies the rub, if you're relying on developers to port their games to yet another console then you're taking a big risky, especially with the amount of legacy games available on steam

ShadowHearth

Lads, lads, lads. We are talking about steam here. Gabe had all this **** defenetly though out. If he is confident enough to show something to us now, then it means it has some sort of solution already. He won't announce something like this and just go " oh ****, wait, what about games?!?! Back to the drawing board!".

I for once looking forward to Linux steam/gaming development. If they will pull it off I will gladly flip the birdy MS way and wish them good luck with their awesome tiles and touchscreen interface on desktop pcs.

Retr0gamer

One thing that is a worry, when have ports of old games ever sold a console? They'll need to make this an all in one box with all the same functionality of a PC to draw consumers.

Magill

How many games do consoles usually launch with anyway ? Surely it won't be that hard for valve to rack up enough games that compare to its competitors ? Then im sure it won't take them long to get a sizable catalog of games. Will they have anything to offer in terms of media ? Curious to see what they're actually going to offer... valve aren't stupid, they won't come out with 30 indie games and their own range of games and expect to do well.

Azza

A concern I have is would EA back it. After all they are major rival to Valve in the digital distribution business.

mcgovern

I see some sites are saying its going to cost $1000.

Azza

ShadowHearth wrote:

Lads, lads, lads. We are talking about steam here. Gabe had all this **** defenetly though out.

Well episodic content didn't work out quite as he planned.

ShadowHearth

Azza wrote: »

Well episodic content didn't work out quite as he planned.

His bank account begs to differ.

gizmo

Azza wrote: »

A concern I have is would EA back it. After all they are major rival to Valve in the digital distribution business.

I'd imagine if it took off they'd happily port Origin and some of their larger and/or future games to Linux. I can't see them suddenly going back to fully supporting Steam though.

Nody

gizmo wrote: »

I'd imagine if it took off they'd happily port Origin and some of their larger and/or future games to Linux. I can't see them suddenly going back to fully supporting Steam though.

Was not the problem that Steam don't support Origin? I.e. the Steam contract states it can't be on another online game portal or similar phrasnig which is what Origin is classified as.

Spear

Nody wrote: »

Was not the problem that Steam don't support Origin? I.e. the Steam contract states it can't be on another online game portal or similar phrasnig which is what Origin is classified as.

It was regarding the DLC sales, Steam requires games sold on Steam to buy their DLC through Steam as well. EA wanted Origin to be an option for DLC sales for Steam bought games.

Retr0gamer

Spear wrote: »

It was regarding the DLC sales, Steam requires games sold on Steam to buy their DLC through Steam as well. EA wanted Origin to be an option for DLC sales for Steam bought games.

Which is the official statement. It's pretty obvious why they really did it.

marco_polo

Spear wrote: »

It was regarding the DLC sales, Steam requires games sold on Steam to buy their DLC through Steam as well. EA wanted Origin to be an option for DLC sales for Steam bought games.

Was the problem not that the option to buy the DLC from steam wasn't there, due to EAs in game stores rather than wanting exclusive rights for steam bought games.

Falthyron

Azza wrote: »

A concern I have is would EA back it. After all they are major rival to Valve in the digital distribution business.

I could live without EA on the new Steam-box.

Mass Effect is pretty much over, different writers, different BioWare, etc
Dragon Age will probably be another disaster
CnC is going to be some terrible pay-to-win game with little to no Single-Player element
Crysis 3 might be decent
Dead Space idea is becoming redundant and tagging on multi-player is not enough
Medal of Honour... well... no need to comment here
Battlefield 3 expansions are not really worth the price

Maybe it is time for EA to pull out the old cash-cow the Sims and start milking some more?

I know this is all entirely subjective, but let's be honest, what game has EA brought out in the last year where it has left an indelible impression on you? Games like The Walking Dead, Dishonoured, X-Com, Far Cry 3, Journey... These stick with you, but EA is a one-trick pony. Show you some random, unique, awesome scene and they expect that to sell the game to you, when, really all you have is a vacuous, lifeless 'product'.

EA = great marketing, looks nice, and you want to get stuck in, but realistically, it will be over-rated and never as good as it seems. Sorta like Megan Fox :P

Dyr

Andy!! wrote: »

It's the responsibility of the individual developer to provide the port, not Valves.

I'm sure if this thing died on its arse Gabe would console himself with that fact.

"well its not our fault none of those third parties developed ports for their games"

Azza

ShadowHearth wrote:

His bank account begs to differ.

Thats due to other reasons. Steam and Valves others games have been very successful but Valves plans to release games episodically so they could make games faster failed spectacularly. Valve have a very good track record but they have made mistakes.

Falthyron wrote:

I could live without EA on the new Steam-box.

You could but I doubt a console could.

Falthyron

Azza wrote: »

You could but I doubt a console could.

Perhaps, but the number of users registering and using STEAM are still increasing despite EA's choice to stop releasing games on it. Would this not be indicative of the importance of service over content and I am sure this would be a key factor for people making a decision on whether or not to buy the console.

I remember one of the key issues when it came to PS3 versus Xbox was not really the type of games on the console, but the online service - Xbox being paid and PS being free.

Spear

marco_polo wrote: »

Was the problem not that the option to buy the DLC from steam wasn't there, due to EAs in game stores rather than wanting exclusive rights for steam bought games.

Yes, you're right, that was ambiguous wording on my part.

ShadowHearth

Azza wrote: »

Thats due to other reasons. Steam and Valves others games have been very successful but Valves plans to release games episodically so they could make games faster failed spectacularly. Valve have a very good track record but they have made mistakes.



You could but I doubt a console could.

Well he still has his millions. I don't really see how his episodic games thing failed. I think it worked like a freaking charm. He hooked everyone on episode one and two, not there is a sea of moaning cows, who doing marketing for valve. When he pulls out hl3 out of his bickers he won't even need to spend a penny on marketing. Fanboys have done that job for free already,
I don't really see that as a fail at all. Even if it is fail that did not costed valve a penny, just made a few fanboys pissed, that's all. Funny enough those pissed fanboys will eat up episode 3 and will have exploding orgasms.

Azza

ShadowHearth wrote:

He hooked everyone on episode one and two, not there is a sea of moaning cows who doing marketing for valve. When he pulls out hl3 out of his bickers he won't even need to spend a penny on marketing. Fanboys have done that job for free already

They didn't need to hook anyone with Episodes 1 and 2. What ever way the developed the series it would of sold like hotcakes considering the reception of the first 2. Had they skipped the messing around with Episodic add ons we might already have Half Life 3.

While the game would of course sell well with no marketing, of course there still going market it as well, because it will sell even better. There is no way there not going to do that.

ShadowHearth

Azza wrote: »

They didn't need to hook anyone with Episodes 1 and 2. What ever way the developed the series it would of sold like hotcakes considering the reception of the first 2. Had they skipped the messing around with Episodic add ons we might already have Half Life 3.

While the game would of course sell well with no marketing, of course there still going market it as well, because it will sell even better. There is no way there not going to do that.

so still, how does that qualifies as valves mistake? they made money and they got everyone hooked up on HL3 like crack.



anyway. We can speculate as much as we want, but in the end we will just have to wait and see.

Azza

Falthyron wrote:

Perhaps, but the number of users registering and using STEAM are still increasing despite EA's choice to stop releasing games on it. Would this not be indicative of the importance of service over content and I am sure this would be a key factor for people making a decision on whether or not to buy the console.

Yes but what percentage of Steam users also use EA's Origin system. Using one service on PC does not stop you from using the other. This will probably not be the case with the Steambox.

Origins user numbers are raising all the time as well. While it does sell games from 3rd parties, it will be primarily selling it own games. Its success would indicate strong demand for EA titles.

Nody

Azza wrote: »

Origins user numbers are raising all the time as well. While it does sell games from 3rd parties, it will be primarily selling it own games. Its success would indicate strong demand for EA titles.

Is that a strong demand for their titles or required activation on the site for all new games though? And Consoles have had exclusives for one console only with out this being a major issue (in fact it's been a driver for selecting one over the other) so I'm not sure why not having Origin would be a major issue.

aN.Droid

Nody wrote: »

Is that a strong demand for their titles or required activation on the site for all new games though? And Consoles have had exclusives for one console only with out this being a major issue (in fact it's been a driver for selecting one over the other) so I'm not suer why not having Origin would be a major issue.

EA's sports games are synonymous with consoles. That, in my opinion is a very large issue that will need to be sorted out for this to be accepted among allot of the console users.

quarryman

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well he still has his billions. .

FTFY.

Azza

ShadowHearth wrote:

so still, how does that qualifies as valves mistake? they made money and they got everyone hooked up on HL3 like crack.

K I'll go off topic one last time. You where making the point that Gabe thinks things out very thoroughly. I agree but that still doesn't means he always gets things right

Several years ago Gabe predicted that episodic content was the future of game development at least at Valve and potentially over the whole industry. Half life 2 Episodes where suppose to set the trend. They said it would allow them to release games quicker. Episodes 1+2+3 where considered to be HL3. But now 9 years or so after the release of Half Life 2 we still don't have a completed trilogy. The gap between Half life 1 and Half life 2 was only 6 years. So in the sense it was suppose to speed up development, Valve where wrong and in the sense it would become there development model they where also wrong as they have since abandoned it in favour of "the game is a service model". My point being Valve aren't infallible.

They didn't need to use Episodes as a tool to hook players for the third game, they where already hooked on the series from the first 2 games. Most would agree that will the Episodes where good, the overall quality of them wasn't quite as good as the first 2 full games.

gizmo

Azza wrote: »

Yes but what percentage of Steam users also use EA's Origin system. Using one service on PC does not stop you from using the other. This will probably not be the case with the Steambox.

Origins user numbers are raising all the time as well. While it does sell games from 3rd parties, it will be primarily selling it own games. Its success would indicate strong demand for EA titles.

And long may it continue. This idea that in order to escape the possibility of one closed-environment in the guise of the Windows App Store, we have to embrace another one, Steam, is ****ing ludicrous.

Similarly, EA getting abuse for wanting to keep DLC-based revenues for themselves rather than being forced to give Valve a cut is nuts when the latter are doing exactly the same thing in trying to get away from Windows.

Whilst it's undoubtedly true that Valve offer the best service in terms of digital distribution platforms at the moment, if they were to release a console which offered no other support for other platforms then I'd avoid it like the plague. On the other hand, if their move to an open Linux-based platform encourages more devs to support the OS then it'll be a great victory for choice for gamers.

Azza

Nody wrote:

Is that a strong demand for their titles or required activation on the site for all new games though?

Well you could look at it this way either. Its possible that it does indicate strong demand, it shows that users are willing to go through quite abit of inconvenience to play EA games.