PlayStation Meeting 2013 (PS4 unveiling - conference replay in first post) - Page 10

Of course it is a windows box. Do you really think Valve is going to get developers to make games for a completely new platform? What are they leveraging then? Valve does not make hardware and they put out one game every two years if they are lucky. What is left? Throwing out the thousands of games on Steam by developing a new OS is suicide. This is a ridiculous thought, it will be a PC or it won't exists.

The best they can do is go with Linux and Nvidia's Linux drivers. But then they lose all the Direct X games, which is 98% of the PC market. How is Valve going to pressure PC devs to port over to Linux? Because they sold a few thousand Steam-boxes to a few loyal fans?

I wonder if any of Google's secret projects is an Android driven game console?

If it happens, it will have to have Windows running beneath the surface somewhere (of course, they do have Steam running on Mac OS too, but the library is much smaller). Tough to know how or if they can do this in a reliable, consistent, console-like way. But, yes, it'd still be a Windows PC when all is said and done.

The selling point would come down to packaging and presentation. I'm on board.

I think a "PC Box" for games is an interesting idea. They do it now with internet video like Roku or Boxee so I can see the potential. There's a couple of big questions like:

How will they make enough money to bother building hardware? Without licensing fee's they would have to rely on software sales revenue only. Those killer Steam sales would be history for the most part. I can only hope they have a smart business plan in the works, because building hardware has been the end for too many companies lately.

How will Valve resolve all the different PC game requirements out there with a console? AAA PC games have a constantly shifting set of driver and hardware requirements. How Valve resolves all that with a fixed, unchanging box will be key to this being successful. Maybe this box is only for casual and smartphone games, and only needs minimal hardware to be useful for years?

This is a cool idea that, if true, still has lots of questions to resolve. It has piqued my interest anyway. A funny coincidence that cross-platform play between PC/Mac and PS3 has been dropped as a feature on Counterstrike:G.O. right on the heels of this "rumor".

Why?

Does Sony? heck, does Xbox?

They need a framework and they need DX, but that's about it. Apple doesn't run windows. Android doesn't run windows. Nintendo doesn't run windows. Games run "ON" windows, but the better term is they run "along side" windows. The processor and GFX architecture and the stuff that runs it (DX) is whats important to games. Not "Windows".

Part of the appeal of a PC-Box would be that it's strictly for gaming and the other things gamers want out of a media/PC box. That doesn't necessitate windows, nor the costs to license windows on each box.

IOW it would be a move to a more true "Gaming PC", one that isn't worried about running skyrim at the same time as MS word, Windows, ad-aware, antivirus, ect, et al. You would have set specs, but some things might be optional for most likely propitiatory upgrades for better performance, while the games are still dev'd for the agreed upon spec sheet (that changes every 4-5 years).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know why.

Valve doesn't do hardware, but they're looking at making this happen and said they will if they have to. Valve said it doesn't do digital delivery, until it did with Steam. A minimal gaming OS running on a PC box isn't out of the question, and it seems to me the smart thing to do rather then create a PC gaming rig then telling your customers they need to purchase licenses from MS to run windows and basically selling a PC with a controller with Vales stamp of approval. How is that going to change PC gaming, or change a thing for the Dev's?

It is simple, where are the games going to come from?

What is valve going to do assuming they can even make their own platform? They can release one game and maybe back-port a few 1st party games. How do they get 3rd party devs on-board? They need it to be a standard Win PC for the simple fact of getting all current Steam games running on it instantly. Without their current library they are just a small software company with no install base and no ability to strong arm devs. Their loyal fans are PC people who build their own systems, not a great start to launching a closed system.

Not to mention Valve has no hardware background so they will have to use off the shelf stuff, which makes for a large, hot, noisy, expensive computer. See the original Xbox.

You're thinking about this wrong. You could license and do DX without having to do windows. It's vastly cheaper. Thats what the 360 is doing now. Yes, technically it will be a "Windows" box, but it won't be a Windows PC in the true form we know. More like a more open xbox.

That depends on MS, but it's money in the bank if Valve is not going to go the Windows route. I also don't see how MS could refuse without legal problems arising. Otherwise it very easily might be the resurgence of a competing format.

all speculation of course, but very possible.


I've read quite a few articles on Valve's pricing models and everything I've read points to them finding that their generous pricing has actually increased sales and profits. You need to remember they don't price games at $5 from the get go, and the small numbers of people putting off purchases until they find a price that agrees with them is more then made up in volume when Joe, "I can't even run skyrim, but for $5 I'll buy it and play it in 2 years when i upgrade" see's it on sale. They sell it to the faithful and impatient at full price, then slowly drop the price until they reach everyone and their dog price. But people know they're also buying the Valve CS, the servers, ect and that makes the whole package, at a cheap price, a really good deal for a "new game".

I've gone on $50-100 binges during their sale periods on games I would have never played (they're on my HDD and still haven't been started btw), or games I simply would have forgot about in 2 years time when they reached the bargain bins.

It's worked so well, that even EA has been copying it with origin! EA is discounting games and finding it smart to sell DD content in bulk! That's pretty crazy when you think about it.

And guess what, used game markets and the rise of DD pricing models are starting to drive down hard copy new game prices too.

The market was deathly afraid that if they lowered prices they would lower revenues. But with the rise of new gamers, the markets are showing them that cheap entertainment can be sold in bulk and more then make up in volume what they did before in price control. You can only go so far with the idea with physical media, since there ARE costs associated with production. But everything else about a game is sunk the time is labeled done. You spent the money to make it, and now if it's mostly a DD on a service like Steam the ONLY thing to be worried about is to price it and promote it in a way that maximizes revenue. Valve has shown sticking to $60, or only offering slight discounts is not a sure fire way to do that in the digital world where bandwidth is cheap and buys are impulsive.

Getting Steam up and running is one thing, but getting all of those games working smoothly is another entirely. If they've got the secret sauce to figuring that out, awesome. I'm totally down. I'd love to see it. Like I said, it'd be perfect timing on Valve's part.

I don't really get what you are saying. either is is a stripped down windows 7 OS, which makes sense or it is some hypothetical OS based on windows with Direct X but not produced by MS? Why would Ms license or create anything for Valve to make a competing platform? It won't happen.

If it is a PC with Windows MS is more than happy to sell them the Os, they are legally obligated to sell it. If it is something else, MS will just LOL at them. MS has Xbox, they have no reason to help create a competitor.

Anyhow it is all moot, DirectX is married to Windows, as are Windows games. You cannot simply emulate direct X calls in some other Os and hope it to work well. Valve also has no history or expertise with OSes.

If this is real I guaranty you it is a Win7 computer with a TV friendly Steam interface and maybe a special controller/keyboard. It will have all parts of the system updated via Steam for 100% Valve control. Sort of what Kindle Fire is to Android.

There seems to be a huge misconception in this thread that Valve is making a console. They are not. They may make a console, but right now all they are doing is making a specification so other manufacturers (alienware, asus...) can build boxes that will be labeled as a "Steam Box". All this does is say that this machine you are buying will run all current steam games at a reasonable quality. This gives developers some kind of a baseline to shoot for.

There will be as many different price schemes and horsepower options as manufacturers want to make. From a base model to an uber machine.

Nowhere has Steam said that they are developing any hardware at all. Alienware apparently already has a machine out that was developed to steam box specs and can be updated with the needed software. This tells me that it is probably a windows machine and steam is releasing some kind of HTPC specific steam client.

Which is basically DX11 libraries and whatever overlay Valve would add to it. Personally I wouldn't call that a windows machine any more than I call the Xbox and 360 a windows machine. Maybe I'm arguing semantics?

Anything with Direct X is technically a windows box, but I'm pointing out I don't see it it booting and running like a normal computer, with those types of functions and being closer to the traditional consoles we see now. IE it won't be a traditional Windows 8 PC box, it'll be a DX box to do PC gaming.

This is all rumor and speculation at this point. Some are saying it's just a new specification for existing hardware, while others are saying it's a full-blown box/console. Nothing from Valve yet either way.

Yes, it is semantics, it would effectively be window 7. They would be able to disable certain things, but the base OS would be intact - think slipstream. The 360 is not this though, it cannot run PC software without a full port. Valve would also have to still buy a license for windows from MS, making the price that much higher.

What does all this Valve steam box talk have to do with the PS4, or am I in the wrong thread?

Next gen news is still scarce, this is the current hot topic. Even though this is a ps section talk of all things next gen occur here. Same goes for the xbox version of this thread.

We should have called the thread "Someone fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation....", then you can discuss anything and go off topic all the time.

Stephen Totilo at GDC on 3/6. These are his observations from day one:


It's thin but it's something! Loose lips let the cat out of the bag (or however it goes). Here's hoping for more cocktails at GDC this weekend

Any chance the next generation game consoles will output 4K resolution?

Output, yes. Thats a given.

Render, not a chance. Any 4k games will be upscales unless they are low tech. (next gen COD may be 4k thanks to its low system requirements)

People are talking because big releases are slowing down. Big studios are probably already shifting gears. Maybe some hints and official teases at this year's E3. A few big releases at the end of 2012. Then the Wii U launches and steals some of the air from the room. That dies down after the holidays. Big launch announcements from MS/Sony in spring 2013. E3 2013 showing games in action. Console launches soon thereafter.

2013 fall/winter has been my guess all along. If Sony does not have a new machine out somewhere in the world by the end of 2013 I will be surprised.

Things could look very different in another year and a half. A possible revamp to Apple TV. A rumored entry from Valve. The Wii U could fly off shelves or flop. Any or all of those things could shuffle projected release dates quite a bit. But, yeah, all signs point to fall 2013.

Can any PC's render games at 4K resolution currently? Why do you think there is no chance the next gen consoles will have this capability? Normally it seems these things really push the limits when they are first released so they can last several years and still be "current".

Ain't gonna happen.

What type of processing power is required to render in 4K? And is there anything out there today that can do it?

My understanding is that the new iPad has more graphics power than in the Xbox 360. So if Apple can pack that much graphics horsepower into a tablet is it a far stretch to think the next gen dedicated gaming consoles can't take things to a whole other level? Or maybe they can, but that level is still a far cry from 4K?

Money, Adoption and resources are the reasons why I don't see it happening. Literally they have a handful of displays that can display 4k with no 4k content. Some of those displays can only receive up to a 1080p signal and only render 3D in 1080p. We can't even achieve 1080p(some cases even 720p) games without sacrifice and somehow because a few companies have shown 4k we are expecting the capability for games in the next consoles? Sony is a perfect example of learning their lessons the hard way. Just the tech features before it was released like dual HDMI taken off and then we started seeing features removed from the system like memory cards to just two USB ports. Cost is what caused those features to go but really how many people use all 4 USB ports on the PS3? 4K is not worth the sacrifice for other resources that should benefit. Companies are not going to risk trying to achieve a feature that will only get to a few. From a companies perspective 4K isn't needed or wanted at this time knowing consumers are not going to go out and spend thousands on big screens again after just buying big screens again to get 1080p displays for their 1080p content options.

Let them consistently put 1080p games with good frame rates out on the consoles first.

Then you can ask about anything beyond that. You would also greatly benefit from reading this entire 3-page thread on this forum: www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1090213

TL;DR? The thread is a discussion about the difference between 720p and 1080p, viewing distance, the human eye, cost of increasing resolution from 480p to 720p to 1080p for game developers, cost of developing the graphical detail of a game beyond its resolution, development budgets, choosing higher resolutions at the cost of better textures, shadows, physics and vice versa, efficiently utilizing substandard computer hardware in consoles, etc...

Of note is people who complain about a lack of 1080p Xbox game content over 720p and they are told to simply enjoy the game and not count pixels, but Nintendo rarely gets this grace.

Apple just got a native 1080P screen... so I'd take their claims of "console level GFX" as highly questionable.

They're going to be able to do 3D, and it's going to look pretty good on the small screen, but it's not going to compare to the best Sony and MS have to offer with their consoles. Maybe sometime in the future, but the chipsets aren't gonna allow it.

Most PC games don't even try to run games at 4K. Most consumers are still having a hard time justifying the difference between HD and SD, 4K might become the standard, but it's not going to be pushing technology purchases.

You make excellent points. Especially for where things will be in a couple years when these systems are released. I'm just looking ahead, say 5 years. At that point 4K will be more mainstream and it'll be a limitation of the system. Which will make it ripe for the next generation after that (2 generations from now) to support 4K. And that'll likely be closer to the time where mainstream folks who purchased 1080p displays in the past couple of years will be ready for an upgrade. Seems about right.

Exactly this. Televisions have traditionally been like refrigerators for most househoulds; you buy a new one every 10-20 years. Multiply that by the number of households, and you get a very slow-moving market. A transition like the one to HD hasn't been seen since the advent of color sets. Convincing hundreds of millions of consumers worldwide to make that transition has been no easy or fast task. Many still can't tell the difference. For many, the transition was much more about size and affordability, not HD quality. Convincing all of those consumers to do it again in 5-10 years is impossible. And consoles will go where display tech goes.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see display tech advancing that quickly for that large of a consumer base. Not to mention that it's already been a massive undertaking for local network affiliates, cable networks, and major national broadcasters to upgrade (and many are still transitioning). And as I understand it, in the US we're already running into major bandwidth limitations, so without the infrastructure to support it on a large scale, we're a long ways off from any widespread new display quality standard (which AFAIK is why 3D broadcasts aren't happening on a large scale). There will always be a high end market with cutting edge tech, but the vast majority of consumers are now going to stick with the HD sets they bought 2-5 years ago for another 10-15 years.

Console manufacturers understand that.