3 ms·

This is basically what the "steam machine" model was. Standardized controller, hardware specifications, OS, available from multiple vendors. It was unfortunatel

by ATsch 7y ago

This is basically what the "steam machine" model was. Standardized controller, hardware specifications, OS, available from multiple vendors. It was unfortunately a bit of a flop.

badsectoracula 7y ago
Not really, Steam Machines were just a PCs running Linux at a time when Linux was in a far worse state for gaming than they are now (and almost all of Steam Machines produced either had weak Intel-based graphics or AMD GPUs when their drivers were still woefully broken). There was never any standard for hardware or even controller and most machines were overpriced, ugly, huge or all of that. So of course they flopped. Steam Machines should have used standardized hardware (even if it was in terms of "levels" like "entry level" or "high end level"), software and peripherals the developers could rely on and Valve should have made sure that the hardware actually fit their respective levels. But Valve never did that and while they still slowly update SteamOS, they have been long sidetracked by VR so there are low chances for them trying a second time.
- mjevans 7y ago
  They'd have been better off defining a standard with something vaguely like a year, or pinned against a console generation as a reference point.
  - badsectoracula 7y ago
    That could help some but IMO the most important part would be to have stable drivers and standardized hardware. What sort of hardware that would be and when they'd updated it isn't that important (though i disagree about the year part - updates should be much less frequent than yearly, otherwise it defeats the purpose of having standardized anything as a year is too short of time span).
jhanschoo 7y ago
My impression of "steam machine" and SteamOS was that they were at least intended as a hedging strategy, at a time when Microsoft was seriously considering becoming a games distributor on Windows PCs. In that, it seems to me that Valve succeeded, in that there is now good awareness of SteamOS and Steam machines that Valve can start to refocus on should Microsoft start considering locking down on Windows apps again. I still think that with more investment, Steam machines and SteamOS can become a moderate success, but until push comes to shove it seems to me likely that Valve thinks concentrating on traditional OSes and PCs is far more lucrative, while maintaining work on Linux (see: Proton) so Steam machines and SteamOS always remains a feasible backup platform.

by ATsch 7y ago

This is basically what the "steam machine" model was. Standardized controller, hardware specifications, OS, available from multiple vendors. It was unfortunately a bit of a flop.

badsectoracula 7y ago

Not really, Steam Machines were just a PCs running Linux at a time when Linux was in a far worse state for gaming than they are now (and almost all of Steam Machines produced either had weak Intel-based graphics or AMD GPUs when their drivers were still woefully broken). There was never any standard for hardware or even controller and most machines were overpriced, ugly, huge or all of that. So of course they flopped. Steam Machines should have used standardized hardware (even if it was in terms of "levels" like "entry level" or "high end level"), software and peripherals the developers could rely on and Valve should have made sure that the hardware actually fit their respective levels. But Valve never did that and while they still slowly update SteamOS, they have been long sidetracked by VR so there are low chances for them trying a second time.

mjevans 7y ago
They'd have been better off defining a standard with something vaguely like a year, or pinned against a console generation as a reference point.
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  That could help some but IMO the most important part would be to have stable drivers and standardized hardware. What sort of hardware that would be and when they'd updated it isn't that important (though i disagree about the year part - updates should be much less frequent than yearly, otherwise it defeats the purpose of having standardized anything as a year is too short of time span).

jhanschoo 7y ago

My impression of "steam machine" and SteamOS was that they were at least intended as a hedging strategy, at a time when Microsoft was seriously considering becoming a games distributor on Windows PCs. In that, it seems to me that Valve succeeded, in that there is now good awareness of SteamOS and Steam machines that Valve can start to refocus on should Microsoft start considering locking down on Windows apps again. I still think that with more investment, Steam machines and SteamOS can become a moderate success, but until push comes to shove it seems to me likely that Valve thinks concentrating on traditional OSes and PCs is far more lucrative, while maintaining work on Linux (see: Proton) so Steam machines and SteamOS always remains a feasible backup platform.