Steam Box Catch-All

tanstaafl wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Was about to create a Steam Box Catch All. Maybe renaming this thread is a better option? :)

Done...

Thanks

I don't think it will come cheap. But you do get quite a bit back, hopefully.
If it can playback music and videos, besides running all the games that are out now...
That's a full package deal then. Not sure if Valve will show up with an awesome controller,
or just another rendition that has been tweaked for the Big Picture.
Also, the form factor makes it quite portable.

One big plus: no subscription, no extra payments for 'Gold' status bull crap

I think it will be a bit of a rough start and that it will slowly catch on.

PRG013 wrote:
maverickz wrote:

Linux Mint. Done in one.

Which version of Linux Mint? I am also confused.

Is there a thread called, "I always wanted to switch to Linux, but was afraid to ask."

For the most part it doesn't matter what you get, possibly the only mistake you can have early on is getting the 64 bit version with a 32 bit chip, but unless you're running on an intel atom that probably doesn't apply to any CPU bought in the last 8 years or so. Once you've got one version up and running you can switch between different options that make up those different versions (desktop environments usually)

Just get an iso image, burn it to disc, and boot the disc to get into a live environment. You can then install onto a hard drive if you want, or they've got a tool (mint4win, run from windows) that lets you install into a file within a windows filesystem for no messing with partitions and easy clean-up if you don't want it.

You all seem to forget how this came about. This isn't meant to replace Steam running on Windows 7. This is supposed to be an alternative to Windows 8 without Steam, since Microsoft was implying that you won't be able to run anything on Windows 8 that was not bought and vetted through their digital distribution store.

Gabe is hedging his bets. It's also a bargaining chip in his war with Microsoft greed heads. If MS does go down the road of locking Win 8, he'll have a platform in place to migrate every free-minded willing person over to Linux based PC gaming.

There is also an issue of Steam being a publisher. We all speculate that the weight of Linux porting will sit with the developer. Who's to say that Steam doesn't have kickbacks and/or incentives, as a publisher, for people to port to Linux?

MoonDragon wrote:

There is also an issue of Steam being a publisher. We all speculate that the weight of Linux porting will sit with the developer. Who's to say that Steam doesn't have kickbacks and/or incentives, as a publisher, for people to port to Linux?

That's an interesting angle. Not 100% sure how they'd do it on a steamplay/multiplatform title though, or if the purchase is done on one platform or through a web browser so they know when to enact those incentives. Perhaps refunding the valve slice whenever a game is played on linux.

PRG013 wrote:
maverickz wrote:

Linux Mint. Done in one.

Which version of Linux Mint? I am also confused.

Is there a thread called, "I always wanted to switch to Linux, but was afraid to ask."

To the powers that be, I apologize for the derail.

You would want the latest, Linux Mint 14 with Cinnamon either 32-bit or 64-bit. http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php
There are other opinions, I find this version to work well.

Download that .iso file
Download UNetbootin http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/

Use UNetbootin to put the iso on a USB stick. Stick the USB stick into a computer, reboot and install.

That's the general easiest procedure for me. Just keep in mind that Linux is a hobbist's OS, it requires a lot of fiddling regardless of version.

Anything beyond this probably should go into the Tech and Help section.

MoonDragon wrote:

You all seem to forget how this came about. This isn't meant to replace Steam running on Windows 7. This is supposed to be an alternative to Windows 8 without Steam, since Microsoft was implying that you won't be able to run anything on Windows 8 that was not bought and vetted through their digital distribution store.

Gabe is hedging his bets. It's also a bargaining chip in his war with Microsoft greed heads. If MS does go down the road of locking Win 8, he'll have a platform in place to migrate every free-minded willing person over to Linux based PC gaming.

I think it's more than that. Linux is used for computing appliances because the maker of the machine is free to modify it however they wish, to create the kind of experience they want. Linux not only gives Valve an off-the-shelf OS to target right now, but one they can modify to make the kind of seamless console-like experience I imagine they envision for a Steam Box.

I imagine Linux might have been a serious consideration for a Steam Box regardless of the Windows 8 situation. Having those things happen at the same time just helped push the idea into reality much more quickly. It's insane that Steam just barely hit Linux and we're already talking about a Steam console running Linux. Even as a Linux geek, I couldn't have imagined this situation as actually happening, and so swiftly, just a few months ago.

There is also an issue of Steam being a publisher. We all speculate that the weight of Linux porting will sit with the developer. Who's to say that Steam doesn't have kickbacks and/or incentives, as a publisher, for people to port to Linux?

This is a very good point.

Valve will continue to focus on the PC. They have done a decent job with Big Picture and with the new crop of low power GPUs and gamer's investment in Steam (The Pile), they are in a good position to challenge the console market without a Steam Box. Just because they make a version of their software for another platform, does not mean they are dedicating any serious bandwidth to the project.

I see this as hardware makers looking for an available software solution, while Valve is simply providing that software.

I just do not see Valve, who have always been software focused, putting a significant amount if resources to launch a console. Look at all they money and time it took MS to get to where they are and their position is far from secure.

The Steambox is exciting, but there's a lot of disbelief. It just seems so ambitious. With a new environment (although it hasn't been confirmed, it just seems inevitable that it'll run a linux-based OS) it can't afford to be niche, or there will only be a tiny amount of games on it.

About linux gaming :
If (it's a big if) linux gaming becomes a thing and a substantial part of new releases get linux ports, I think the huge backlog of past games will eventually be playable through wine (a bunch already are) while projects that make it easy to use like playonlinux will become more common/fleshed out. I don't think we'll see that sort of technology used within Steam though, as I assume it's up to the individual publishers whether to provide support for their old games on the platform or not.

Having this new gaming environment sounds unlikely and a bit crazy really, but at the same time the cost of porting to linux (PC to PC) is not the same as doing a PC/console port. There's no difference in control schemes, the engine itself might support linux out of the box (with the Steambox around, it wouldn't be surprising to see the next version of say, unreal engine, support it), and the people working in the field (the most famous among linux gamers being Ryan C. Gordon) say it's inexpensive to port especially if planned from day one. Also look at the rumors of some high profile games having linux ports as mere pet projects of the development team : WoW supposedly having a secret linux client or the guild wars developers making adjustments so that the game runs correctly with wine.

heavyfeul wrote:

Valve will continue to focus on the PC. They have done a decent job with Big Picture and with the new crop of low power GPUs and gamer's investment in Steam (The Pile), they are in a good position to challenge the console market without a Steam Box. Just because they make a version of their software for another platform, does not mean they are dedicating any serious bandwidth to the project.

I see this as hardware makers looking for an available software solution, while Valve is simply providing that software.

I just do not see Valve, who have always been software focused, putting a significant amount if resources to launch a console. Look at all they money and time it took MS to get to where they are and their position is far from secure.

That's true! It's not a ridiculous investment, either. The company was only looking for $300,000 or whatever in the first place with that kickstarter. It definitely does seem like more of a side project, and I'm cool with that.

Good points on the Win8 part and publishing as well.
Maybe future game engines will be made easier to port, when kept in mind that the game(s) will also
be released on a Linux distro.

django wrote:

About linux gaming :
If (it's a big if) linux gaming becomes a thing and a substantial part of new releases get linux ports, I think the huge backlog of past games will eventually be playable through wine (a bunch already are) while projects that make it easy to use like playonlinux will become more common/fleshed out. I don't think we'll see that sort of technology used within Steam though, as I assume it's up to the individual publishers whether to provide support for their old games on the platform or not.

Having this new gaming environment sounds unlikely and a bit crazy really, but at the same time the cost of porting to linux (PC to PC) is not the same as doing a PC/console port. There's no difference in control schemes, the engine itself might support linux out of the box (with the Steambox around, it wouldn't be surprising to see the next version of say, unreal engine, support it), and the people working in the field (the most famous among linux gamers being Ryan C. Gordon) say it's inexpensive to port especially if planned from day one. Also look at the rumors of some high profile games having linux ports as mere pet projects of the development team : WoW supposedly having a secret linux client or the guild wars developers making adjustments so that the game runs correctly with wine.

One thing I wouldn't mind them doing is letting people running on linux download windows files if there is no native version available. Put up a message saying "you won't be able to play this on linux officially, but you can download the files anyway. OK to continue" and do everything they can on their side to facilitate using wine, short of setting it up. If anything it saves people the bother of running a second copy of steam under wine too.

I know nothing about linux, but what would prevent someone from just installing a windows os on the device?

Valve says "No current plans to announce anything in 2013"

So all this buzz from CES is apparently just about releasing "Steam-optimized" devices this year, with the actual "Steam Box" releasing in 2014 or later.

What about the input devices that Valve was working on? Any new news?

I feel like the more I hear about the Steam Box, the less I know.

I'm going to be looking around for my next gaming "home" when the new generation of consoles is upon us—at the moment the only compelling option is the Xbox 720. PC gaming is attractive for a host of reasons, and PC gaming with controller on the couch would be all the way there except for one thing: price. I already have a computer, which does the main things I need my computer to do to my satisfaction, and are exclusive to its OS (iPhoto, iWork, iCloud, Time Machine, etc), that it doesn't need to be replaced to support a secondary use.

I know PC gamers like to bang the drum about how cheap PC gaming is compared to consoles, but: it's not.

But a Steam Box that's a small dedicated gaming machine (there's a name for those things, I forget), that could complement my existing doesn't-need-to-be-replaced-and-couldn't-afford-it-anyway computer, would tick all the boxes—if it costs the same or less than the competing consoles.

I don't even know what the Steam Box's target is. Existing Steam users? Potential Steam users? Converting console gamers? If it's the last, I'll be the first in line to take a look. In the meantime I remain, as always, confused and ill-informed.

Is it possible to run Steam on different pc's at the same time? That is, with the same account logged in.
If not, I think they should at least 2 or 3 systems to be logged in at the same time.

MeatMan wrote:

Valve says "No current plans to announce anything in 2013"

So all this buzz from CES is apparently just about releasing "Steam-optimized" devices this year, with the actual "Steam Box" releasing in 2014 or later.

Games journalism at its finest: report rumors from "translations" as a source, treat them as fact, reap the page hits, then go "oops, we were wrong" and repeat ad nauseum.

Edit: EG/Digital Foundy weigh in: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...

Gaming edition of X7a is $1100. Not sure if Valve is able to push that down. So curious how that will develop.

Sparhawk wrote:

Is it possible to run Steam on different pc's at the same time? That is, with the same account logged in.

It's not possible. You get a little message saying someone has logged in on your account and you get disconnected. I really think they're overdue for some sort of group licensing if they're planning on expanding to additional screens other than your monitor.

shoptroll wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Is it possible to run Steam on different pc's at the same time? That is, with the same account logged in.

It's not possible. You get a little message saying someone has logged in on your account and you get disconnected. I really think they're overdue for some sort of group licensing if they're planning on expanding to additional screens other than your monitor.

Was afraid of that. Maybe they can do a family license like Apple does.

Sparhawk wrote:

Was afraid of that. Maybe they can do a family license like Apple does.

Or all the console manufacturers for that matter

shoptroll wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Was afraid of that. Maybe they can do a family license like Apple does.

Or all the console manufacturers for that matter :)

Ah ok, don't own a console myself

Gabe Newell wrote:

Do you envision a Steam Box connecting to other screens outside the living room?

The Steam Box will also be a server. Any PC can serve multiple monitors, so over time, the next-generation (post-Kepler) you can have one GPU that’s serving up eight simulateneous game calls. So you could have one PC and eight televisions and eight controllers and everybody getting great performance out of it. We’re used to having one monitor, or two monitors -- now we’re saying lets expand that a little bit.

From this interview on The Verge, Shoptroll posted in another Steam thread.

That would be very interesting indeed. I would assume that they would likely do away with the "single login at a time" issue. Which I think we might all appreciate.

WipEout wrote:

That would be very interesting indeed. I would assume that they would likely do away with the "single login at a time" issue. Which I think we might all appreciate.

The big question is whether or not that's 8 instances of the same game or different games from a shared library.

It's really a shame MS has put a lot of their efforts on Xbox at the expense of the PC as a platform. Gabe's vision sounds like many thin clients in your home hooked to a central workstation. I think MS was heading that way with their Home Server product (which was unceremoniously canned). Not to mention the disservice GFWL has been. I really think if MS hadn't shifted focus so drastically we wouldn't be talking about Steam Boxes and many other things. In this light, their interest in a Linux setup makes sense. I think to many gamers, Valve/Steam is the platform holder these days, not Microsoft.

I assumed it was different games from a single library, if only because I can't think of any games that are 8-player from the couch.

Also of note, he pointed out that one could, in fact, install Windows on one's Steam Box should one choose to do so.

IUMogg wrote:

I know nothing about linux, but what would prevent someone from just installing a windows os on the device?

Gabe stated in an interview today that they would not prevent people from running Windows on the Steam Box, so my conjecture was off the mark. Much respect to Valve for not locking the thing down.

But to answer your question, there are any number of ways they could lock the thing down if they wanted to, there's even a standard now for uefi secure boot in which a system will only boot a kernel signed with a particular key. Just running "Linux" does not preclude trying to prevent users from taking control of a device (see Android and rooting, although their locked boot loaders are usually circumvented eventually).

I'm really confused. You can hook a PC to your TV right now and play Steam games. If Valve wants to do a console, why do they have to be so convoluted about it?

And why is there this much excitement from the PC crowd for a console just because Valve is doing it? This mostly sounds like Valve trying to solve what console makers figured out a long time ago, and their attempt to differentiate just seems like it is making PC gaming on your TV worse.

Jayhawker wrote:

I'm really confused. You can hook a PC to your TV right now and play Steam games. If Valve wants to do a console, why do they have to be so convoluted about it?

Read the Verge article that WipEout linked. What Gabe describes - about the Steam Box itself and Steam as a platform - is more than anything the next Xbox or PS will likely be doing.

And why is there this much excitement from the PC crowd for a console just because Valve is doing it? This mostly sounds like Valve trying to solve what console makers figured out a long time ago, and their attempt to differentiate just seems like it is making PC gaming on your TV worse.

I can only speak for myself, and I would describe myself as interested, but not excited. Besides the occassional tablet game (Pinball Arcade) while I'm "on the throne," I don't have any desire to play games other than on my monitor in my home office. But like most of us, I am interested in gaming and technology, and the Steam Box (not to mention the other ambitious things Gabe talked about in that Verge interview) is rather intriguing.

I think Valve already has a "console" with Big Picture. It needs some work, but it is becoming very close to a console within Windows. Maybe their next gen. plans revolve around a dual boot solution, where Windows runs paired down under the hood and Big Picture takes center stage?

Jayhawker wrote:

I'm really confused. You can hook a PC to your TV right now and play Steam games. If Valve wants to do a console, why do they have to be so convoluted about it?

And why is there this much excitement from the PC crowd for a console just because Valve is doing it? This mostly sounds like Valve trying to solve what console makers figured out a long time ago, and their attempt to differentiate just seems like it is making PC gaming on your TV worse.

From the interview, though, I got the impression that it would run a variety of ways (depending on which level of hardware you get). Either an option to stream wirelessly from your PC to your TV, to stream to multiple TVs, or to run as a standalone gaming/media box.

And I think there's this much excitement/interest from the PC crowd not just because it's Valve doing it, but because we're experiencing a convergence in gaming-- we're no longer relegated to PCs for certain games and consoles for others (look at the variety of console ports on Steam, for example), and we as players want to be able to enjoy the games we get on Steam wherever we are comfortable. As I said previously, I'd like to play console-minded games on the couch, but FPS or other mouse/keyboard-centric games at the PC. Steam Box may prove to be an affordable solution to the issue of building a small, quiet set-top box PC that's not a tower.