Most of us reading this site want Steam Machines to do well. Not all of us will be interested in buying the hardware, but we're aware that its success is also tied to the success of Linux as a gaming platform, which is why I'm pretty miffed that the OEMs and Valve have messed it up.
Valve have done well with the controller and with making SteamOS pretty coherent and user-friendly, but messed it up when it came to defining what a Steam Machine actually is, leaving it open to interpretation. I've said this time and time again, but the original Steam Machines line-up was a complete mess. We had everything from $1500 PCs to ludicrously overpriced machines which didn't even have discreet graphics cards.
Even the best offerings fall short. Alienware's cheapest offering comes in at $450 (this should be the ideal price point in my opinion), but offers a mere 4GB RAM. If you want to scale this up to 8GB, you have to pay $750 since it also means upping the CPU to an i5. Does a GTX 960 need an i5 to do its thing? No, not really. You might get a few extra frames or do better in a more CPU-intensive game, but if one tries to step outside the worldview of a PC gamer and into one of a console gamer, then it doesn't take long to realise that those $200 aren't worth it, but $20 for an extra stick of 4GB RAM would be worth it.
This is perhaps the most frustrating thing. Most of the time, the specs are completely wrong, but when they're not then the price is a serious problem. An Intel i3 and Nvidia 960/1060 series (or AMD equivalent) are the perfect mass market specs for a sofa 1080p gamer just coming off a console. Someone with more needs than that will know how to build a PC and will do it cheaper and better than an OEM.
With the GTX1060 coming out, estimated to have a performance somewhere between a 970 and 980 (probably more on the side of a 980, but I like being conservative) at $250, and if AMD's Zen architecture lives up to the hype and delivers the same price/performance ratio benefits that the Piledriver architecture did, then we could be looking at a new era for the Steam Machine if things are done right this time round.
So what should be done right? First and foremost, deliver the best performance at the lowest cost possible. There is absolutely no room for diminishing returns here, which is why I can't advocate i7s or even i5s. Upgradability would also be a nice plus and a huge selling point if it's approached in a way where a non-technically minded user can get an upgrade easily through using modular designs (there's a lot of possibilities here, but too much to go into for this article). This has the potential to be a massive selling point over this last console generation, which was underpowered on release.
The second, and perhaps more controversial, point is that Valve should really take a few lessons from the console world. By this I mean manufacturing their own machine (which doesn't mean exclusivity). While the idea of everyone building their own box is amicable, the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. This is what makes consoles so competitive, gives them (historically, not this last generation) great performance compared to PCs on launch at a much better price, with a considerable lifespan.
There's a few reasons for this. Firstly, there's economies of scale, with a single manufacturer pumping out tonnes of machines, the production costs are lower for a number of reasons which this article won't touch upon. Secondly, the benefits of optimisation are tremendous. If everyone is developing for the same hardware, it's easy to accommodate for and optimise a game to get the most out of that hardware - this is one of the main reasons why consoles have such a long lifespan, considering this optimisation also gets better with time. The third reason is simply a retail one, since a high street vendor is far more likely to stock Steam Machines if there's only one option, again for a number of reasons. There's probably more, such as the ability to sell hardware at a loss or a significantly lower profit margin (since that money is made back through game sales), but those are the main ones.
In essence, for Steam Machines to succeed, I would like to see something priced at just over $400 (might be a bit optimistic, but possible with lower profit margins) made by Valve and at those sweet spot specs I mentioned earlier. The original launch was very underwhelming, but there's still a lot of potential to turn things around significantly if Valve come to their senses. Even without them making their own hardware, there's still room for OEMs to improve a lot. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Valve have done well with the controller and with making SteamOS pretty coherent and user-friendly, but messed it up when it came to defining what a Steam Machine actually is, leaving it open to interpretation. I've said this time and time again, but the original Steam Machines line-up was a complete mess. We had everything from $1500 PCs to ludicrously overpriced machines which didn't even have discreet graphics cards.
Even the best offerings fall short. Alienware's cheapest offering comes in at $450 (this should be the ideal price point in my opinion), but offers a mere 4GB RAM. If you want to scale this up to 8GB, you have to pay $750 since it also means upping the CPU to an i5. Does a GTX 960 need an i5 to do its thing? No, not really. You might get a few extra frames or do better in a more CPU-intensive game, but if one tries to step outside the worldview of a PC gamer and into one of a console gamer, then it doesn't take long to realise that those $200 aren't worth it, but $20 for an extra stick of 4GB RAM would be worth it.
This is perhaps the most frustrating thing. Most of the time, the specs are completely wrong, but when they're not then the price is a serious problem. An Intel i3 and Nvidia 960/1060 series (or AMD equivalent) are the perfect mass market specs for a sofa 1080p gamer just coming off a console. Someone with more needs than that will know how to build a PC and will do it cheaper and better than an OEM.
With the GTX1060 coming out, estimated to have a performance somewhere between a 970 and 980 (probably more on the side of a 980, but I like being conservative) at $250, and if AMD's Zen architecture lives up to the hype and delivers the same price/performance ratio benefits that the Piledriver architecture did, then we could be looking at a new era for the Steam Machine if things are done right this time round.
So what should be done right? First and foremost, deliver the best performance at the lowest cost possible. There is absolutely no room for diminishing returns here, which is why I can't advocate i7s or even i5s. Upgradability would also be a nice plus and a huge selling point if it's approached in a way where a non-technically minded user can get an upgrade easily through using modular designs (there's a lot of possibilities here, but too much to go into for this article). This has the potential to be a massive selling point over this last console generation, which was underpowered on release.
The second, and perhaps more controversial, point is that Valve should really take a few lessons from the console world. By this I mean manufacturing their own machine (which doesn't mean exclusivity). While the idea of everyone building their own box is amicable, the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. This is what makes consoles so competitive, gives them (historically, not this last generation) great performance compared to PCs on launch at a much better price, with a considerable lifespan.
There's a few reasons for this. Firstly, there's economies of scale, with a single manufacturer pumping out tonnes of machines, the production costs are lower for a number of reasons which this article won't touch upon. Secondly, the benefits of optimisation are tremendous. If everyone is developing for the same hardware, it's easy to accommodate for and optimise a game to get the most out of that hardware - this is one of the main reasons why consoles have such a long lifespan, considering this optimisation also gets better with time. The third reason is simply a retail one, since a high street vendor is far more likely to stock Steam Machines if there's only one option, again for a number of reasons. There's probably more, such as the ability to sell hardware at a loss or a significantly lower profit margin (since that money is made back through game sales), but those are the main ones.
In essence, for Steam Machines to succeed, I would like to see something priced at just over $400 (might be a bit optimistic, but possible with lower profit margins) made by Valve and at those sweet spot specs I mentioned earlier. The original launch was very underwhelming, but there's still a lot of potential to turn things around significantly if Valve come to their senses. Even without them making their own hardware, there's still room for OEMs to improve a lot. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Patreon
PayPal
How could the leading company in Video Games ever make a fatal mistake? Not like thats ever happened, right?...
Only get a laptop if you travel a lot and really need a laptop - otherwise, they are generally poor investments, especially gaming laptops.
You bring up a point that reminds me of another downfall in the current Alienware Steam Machines:
- Modest gaming hardware + Less optimized Linux ports of games
This is a death sentence for a gaming console.
I want to be a fan, and even I noticed it. As a test, I loaded up the ISO of Win 10 (runs as nag-ware) and several higher requirements 3D Steam games that were chugging on SteamOS, they all ran noticeably faster on the same Steam Machine w/ Win 10 loaded on it. So, I blew away Win 10 and re-installed SteamOS and love it!
But most people aren't going to do that.
It's an unfortunate catch-22. I don't notice the higher end Linux ported games being less optimized on my main gaming PC so much. But on more modest gaming hardware, like the Alienware SM, inferior Linux ports become distinctly more noticeable :-/
except that they will relase PS4 Neo and Xbox Scorpio, i'm the only one here who read the news?
"Customers do not want exclusives. Customers want good games. Console vendors, and Microsoft, try and use good games as exclusives to force customers to buy their product over competitors. Exclusives hurt customers. However, I don't have a problem with games releasing on one platform first and then others (I think a year is to long though, 3 months or 6 at most is reasonable). Fanboys may want exclusives so that they have something to hold over fanboys (or even regular owners) of other systems. These sick individuals are an extremely small portion of customers however and are unimportant. They can love their chosen platform without exclusives and they will."
1)exclusives drive sales, sales bring thirdyparty support, wich lead to good games on the platform.
2)exclusives do hurt customers, but we can't chose to live in a world without exclusives, its an utopy because¹, the real choice is: have tens exclusives and all thirdypart games? or have no exclusives and only an small subset of the thirdyparty games with an inferior performance due to poor ports?
its not about a world with exclusives or a world without, its a world with 5000 windows exclusives because valve refuse to do 1, or a world with ~10 windows exclusives, ~10 linux exclusives everything else multiplat.
and in the later on those exclusivty contracts may expire within time.
its not about being a fanboy, if an product have everything that the other have+something its a better product. if both platforms have exclusives they pick the one with the best exclusives.
"I don't see new AAA games coming anytime soon with the apparent stagnation of Linux steam usage, judged by Steam stats."
looks like we will receive a bunch of games at the end of this year
"Steam boxes have the advantage of using a free OS, something XBox doesn't have and it's been wasted."
Microsoft dont have to pay thenselfs for the operating system.
"So instead of having my baby crying I have chosen to buy him an Xbox one "
why not an ps4?
"(Yes, KSP is planned, but we are playing it for years now on Linux). And these are serious, big games, that you can justify to call AAA."
no they're not
"Please folks, just drop using this term (AAA). It's practically useless because it's highly ambiguous and confusing without explaining every time what's implied. "
games that cost up to 200 millions to make and put 50~75% of their budget on marketing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(video_game_industry)
also the preice is wrong.
people chose PS4 over XboxOne because it had an better hardware and they thought it would be the best place for multiplatform games, but they change their mind and pick an xboxOne instead when microsoft drop the price by 50USD! that is how much they care about graphics.
sony had to do the same to keep leading.
also:
i dont give a shit about the amount of games avaliable, the ones that i want to play arent avaliable, and i dont see why should i put money on it, if valve isnt willing to put.
every company put 50~75% of the cost of production of a product on marketing and only 25 in R/D, valve didnt put a 1 cent on marketing.
i will keep buying all linux games that interests me (even a little bit) at full price and everything else on high sales only after i finish my linux collection, but i will not wait forever for the linux year on desktop or console to play the games i want.
im waiting since 2008 and the marketshare didnt change, i hoped it would with steamMachines at least on gaming, but it didnt happen, consoles are the market to go, the market that change every 5 years and nothing!
Last edited by elmapul on 12 July 2016 at 6:15 am UTC
Currently I have PS4. I bought it for one reason - I wanted to play Witcher 3 and I have decided to spend 1600 pln on a hardware and game as a reward for myself for finished studies and OCJP.
For almost a year I look for a hardware, that is:
1) not overpriced,
2) looks nice,
3) is not bigger than PS4,
4) can run XCOM2 with stable ~45 fps on high settings
5) has upgradeable GPU
All the PC setups I can build are matching only points 1, 4 and 5. Alienware Steam Machine matches points 2, 3, 4. Alienware is closer because look and feel is important for me in living room, but it does not meet all the requirements.
To sum up - don't judge people who have other requirements than you do. Powerfull PC makes sense only if it's next to desk or you can hide it in a nice way but it still can exchange the air with the room.
I cannot imagine huge beast in the living room.
PS. I was considering Steam Link, but I don't have wired infrastructure and on the WiFi PS4 Remote play does not work very well, and I hate that the connection is not stable, so I don't think Steam Link is something for me.
Last edited by redshift on 12 July 2016 at 6:24 am UTC
Agreed, the Alienware gives you the main advantage of a pre-built: compact design, that's actually attractive to look at on top of the table. I've listed several negative components - but there are also many things I like about it - like the form factor/attractiveness of the unit, and an excellent choice for a lot of low requirements Linux games that are still great games.
As far as meeting all your points, I think you're getting back to the main point of the original article: a little better hardware in the lowest end Alienware and/or Zotac SM models, and make those the only options for better gamer and developer clarity on what to target. But as of now, it's looking like Steam Machines may stall hard. So what is out now may end up being all there ever is. But I sure would like to be proven wrong on that.
Sure, is not how we wanted to be, but I'm pretty sure they are very much aware of the current situation with SteamOS and everything related to it.
I think this is too pessimistic. It's not like Valve will drop the project anytime soon. That's not how they roll.
It's just that so many of us are so restless about seeing some progress, we want it out there, and we want it now. But yeah, by the looks of it we will have this exact same discussion in a years time.
Meanwhile, let's treasure the releases that do hit our shores!
It is damn good! Have two of them xD.
Sure you could build a better gaming machine for that money, but not in this little tiny size. You can't even hear it. It stands right in front of me on my Desktop 30-40 cm away. In contrary I can hear a console like XBone or PS4 from 3-4 Meters away, which is kinda annoying.
Zotac has done damn good job with their nifty little ZBox :)
I'm happy you didn't get him a steam machine too. I'm amazed you bought a 4-year old a console at all.
I challenge you to find some XBox titles besides the Lego games that a 4-year old can enjoy. I'll bet that it's about the same amount.