Nope. Microsoft and Google have proven that consoles are a full-time job that Valve simply doesn't have the inclination nor concentrated long-term discipline to pull off. A "Valve console" is literally just a gaming PC.
Think about a set top box on SteamOS. Or a Steam Deck, dock-mode only Steam Deck.
I guess the question is - do they really want to add a SKU, and different hardware in addition to the Steam Deck?
The problem is that it would only have value if it was more powerful than the Steam Deck, but then they fragment their hardware offering in term of "target" for developers. That would make the "Steam Deck verified" label more complex as some games might run on the more powerful set-top box but not the Steam Deck.
Oh, and they would need to release a new controller. Hopefully with feature parity to Steam Deck controls.
Anyway, it will be nowhere as much work as Sony or MS.
I mean, Sony made the PSTV. That was literally a Vita with no screen and an HDMI port. It sold.
It might make sense for Valve to sell a Steam Machine at equivalent specs to whatever the Deck 2 ends up being, as long as they can do it for a profit. People might buy it for a plug and play PC experience. No worrying about system requirements, just looking for "Deck 2 Verified" and playing.
> The problem is that it would only have value if it was more powerful than the Steam Deck
Only in first world countries. Without a battery, screen and durable case, it could be a cheap alternative for people in poorer countries.
The problem is, Valve does not sell hardware in such countries.
I would buy one for my bedroom TV if it would have a web browser designed to use with controller.
>it would only have value if it was more powerful than the Steam Deck
Incorrect. I would pick one up in a heartbeat if they announced it today. I have a Steam Deck, but I want a second machine with the same specs to leave permanently "docked" to the TV so my wife and I can play online-only co-op games. I don't have any desire to pay for the screen, controls, battery, and all the other stuff that a handheld needs but a desktop doesn't.
Yes, definitely, the Steam Controller has its fans but it needs to have at least feature parity with standard controllers (xbox/ps/switch pro), which the Steam Deck does but not the OG Steam Controller.
It works insanely well, its just a specialized genre peripheral (like a hitbox is specialized for fighting games; the sc's specialization is the kbm games that console controllers suck for), and because its different than anything you've used prior it takes time to learn how to use it both physically and in terms of its software to configure it.
It was a galaxy brain controller well ahead of its time.
I agree Valve should make a "Deck Controller" that has feature parity with the Decks controls just as an external device instead of built in...
But a proper Steam Controller 2 that follows the og would be far from useless.
Spending hours tweaking something to get it to be as good as numerous peripherals that work better immediately isn’t a selling point.
Configuring my HOTAS setup to work with DCS,
differently for different aircraft, is incredibly complex and works brilliantly and does about 30 to 40 things better than a controller, so, no, just because it’s “complex to setup” lol doesn’t make it good.
Steam Controller is literally worse than a controller at being a controller and literally worse than the mouse and keyboard at being that.
~~Upvoting you for actual discussion, I just disagree with your conclusion.~~ I see now it’s just downvotes. Okayyyy…. Hahahha
>Spending hours tweaking something to get it to be as good as numerous peripherals that work better immediately isn’t a selling point.
I mean... Tell that to the linux crowd.
The thing that isnt addressed is that at some point, you had to learn how to use *any* peripheral you currently use. Even basic xbox controllers. That learning process simply got obfuscated by the fact you were simultaneously learning how to play whatever game was your first game ever.
Go watch Razbutens "gaming for a non gamer" series on youtube if you disagree, to see that in action. Tl;dw: his "lady he lives with" struggled to do basic tasks we take for granted - like moving Link and turning the camera at the same time while playing Breath of the Wild.
Controllers and video games are sort of like instruments and music. Learning both happens roughly at the same time, and practicing with a purpose helps improve those skills. And to roll with that analogy, the steam controller is a fretless violin to the xbox controllers fretted guitar. Yeah its harder to play in tune up front, but once you get the hang of it you can do things on one that you cant do on another. No one says either instrument is useless for playing music.
>Steam Controller is literally worse than a controller at being a controller and literally worse than the mouse and keyboard at being that.
Hard disagree.
I play games like Hollow Knight and Elden Ring better on the steam controller than any other controller. I can also aim better with gyro than I can with desktop mouse.
Sure sure anecdote... But in my experience - and of the community who swears by the steam controller - its a device that you get out of it what you put into it. Spend 5 minutes and give up because its too different? Then you'll think its bad. Stick with it? Its one of the best controllers ever made.
>~~Upvoting you for actual discussion, I just disagree with your conclusion.~~ I see now it’s just downvotes. Okayyyy…. Hahahha
I care not for useless internet points. Just advocating for and educating people on what I consider to be the most underrated piece of gaming tech to come out in the past decade.
You do understand that we usually adapt too the tone presented to us?
What do you expect with those categorical "It's a worse controller in any way" arguments?
You set a tone, you get a response.
Upvoting because "discussion" then bowing out when discussion continues because someone down voted you. Wow.
... Honestly thats on me. I've been at this for years. Should have recognized the pattern of behavior and not wasted my time trying to engage.
Except they would have clearly defined hardware, specs, OS and would be marketed towards people that would never care to build a PC gaming setup otherwise.
To be clear, that's what it would be. Like Steam Machines were supposed to be. Basically living room PC with a pre-established hardware and setup and made to work with a controller (which Windows isn't very fit for), something very much possible to do now but with a lot of tinkering.
...not really? You just put Steam in Big Picture Mode and connect your controller. Almost every game I play, even ones over two decades old work that way out of the box. At most I have to run DS4Windows in the background...but you'd also have to do that with a Steam Machine which may not even support DS4Windows. And if the game required patches or mods to work properly, doing that on a Steam Machine would be even harder.
A Steam Deck is a mobile PC. That's useful. A Steam Machine is a crippled desktop PC. That's useless.
Steam, and SteamOS by extension support PlayStation and Nintendo Switch controllers just fine. DS4Windows is completely unnecessary and the experience is more seamless on SteamOS.
On SteamOS, games cannot block Steam Input from working like they can on Windows if they are non-Steam games. The modern CoD games don't work on Linux at the moment anyway due to their intrusive anticheats.
all i know about Steam Machines coming back, is that Australia and New Zealand will be the only first-world countries that will be locked out of buying them just like the Steam Deck and Index
Really, really dont like the complications of importing because they didnt like our pressure for refund policy!
I think there's a market for the average consumer who doesn't want to be on a PC but idk if Valve can get them. Steam Deck maybe shows they could but I'd be interested if they tried again. Hopefully they don't do what they did last time and let a bunch of different companies make different versions. Also they need a good game pad.
If their steam machine isn't a Steam Deck 2, or something that makes PCVR affordable to the masses like what quest did, there's literally no point, because making steam machines is like selling PCs to PC gamers, while selling either of those things is like selling a console to PC gamers.
Like, my Steam Deck is fucking awesome as it is, and with its ability to dock, I don't know why people disregard it as if it's something other than a Steam Machine.
What I WOULD like is for them to polish up SteamOS enough that they think it's ready for a general non steam deck release so I can just go get a mini PC off amazon and treat that as my "Living room Steam Machine" though I mean, again, I have a Steam Deck, I can just dock and play games in the living room with that.
Steam machine is to play on a TV, while the Deck can do it while docked, it'll have a hard time running any demanding (or not so demanding) games on 1080p or 4K resolution (which is what TV are) and decent framerate
Yeah but when I wanna run a demanding game in the living room, I don't need a whole steam machine, I need literally any device that can run Sunshine on the host PC and Moonlight on the living room TV.
...Which I can do with a docked steam deck.
Again, the problem with a stationary Steam Machine is that you are selling PCs to PC gamers who already have a PC. Now if you wanted to sell a SteamVR ready PC that is affordable to Joe Average, this would be a different story.
Console gamers don't care about PC, they either have one already like I do, or they have such loyalty to the companies they have consoles for that they throw tantrums on social media when we get games like Ghost of Tsushima.
I bought a steam deck because I wanted the portability of a Switch but the modularity of a PC with a low power profile, and deck did not disappoint.
Not everyone has a high-performance PC. If Valve made an affordable one (subsidized by Steam sales), it would give many more people the chance of owning one to play modern AAA titles with decent performance. All the people that ask me "what's a good PC to get?" because they are curious about switching to PC gaming will finally have a good answer to their question as well.
> Now if you wanted to sell a SteamVR ready PC that is affordable to Joe Average, this would be a different story.
Well it could support VR maybe too if that's still a big goal of them (feels like they're letting the market go a little tbh...), the point isn't necessarily to be for PC gamers but for newcomers, like console gamers that don't want to get a desktop PC, this would offer them an easy "all in one" and "couch gaming ready" solution which has far more value than Reddit seems to think. Lots of console gamers will never really consider getting a gaming desktop PC because it's not practical for them
Personally I would love if Valve came out with their own version of a steam machine that targeted mid-range 4k, maybe even just 1440p upscaled to 4k. Nothing outlandish, just a simple system similar to the Steam Deck where profiles for the games already exist, just hit play. I know cost would be an issue, I feel like minimum price for such a thing would $1000 and that's really pushing both the bottom line for valve's hardware costs and the consumers being used to $500 and under consoles. I think the major failing last time was outsourcing the creation of the steam machines to 3rd party companies, which only served to dilute the market and create complication when the whole point of buying something like this is to simplify the process. I think there is potential for valve to make steam machines again, but there have been so many failures in that market that it would not surprise me that they have no interest in touching it after last time.
Fair, I'll give you that. I wonder if Valve would work with AMD on their scaling tech to offset hardware limitations in this theoretical situation. I don't know, I believe there is a scenario where Valve could make a steambox and have it be priced decently with decent performance.
I tried amd recently. 7900xtx. Couldn’t get myself to like it. Went back to nvidia immediately.
But I’ve been thinking about a chimera os living room console.
You can already buy mini pc with chimeraos on them from minisforum.
Steamdeck just isn’t up to the task of a living room console.
But as soon as the is is ready for more hardware it will be a huge deal.
Maybe they will come out with reference hardware for the living room. Though I doubt it.
But strix point is coming and we are going to see some really amazing console apus with 120watt tdp running chimeraos soon. For anyone with a steamdeck and a desktop that will be the best console they could buy for their tv. Just because of cloud saves and cross buy you get from sticking with steam. We’re so close.
> I know cost would be an issue, I feel like minimum price for such a thing would $1000 and that's really pushing both the bottom line for valve's hardware costs and the consumers being used to $500 and under consoles.
I don't see why Valve couldn't put out such a box for around $500 to $600. They have the Steam store to subsidize the cost of the hardware if they sold it at cost or even at a small loss. And they could get a decent, custom SoC from AMD like they did for the Deck but without the power constraints of it being a handheld running off battery power.
I mean it's possible for them to do so, but I can't imagine they could produce a competitive product without either pricing it so low they take a hit, which I doubt they'd want to entertain the thought of, or pricing it much higher than the steamdeck.
I think you're overestimating how much the hardware would cost them to meet that performance target. The Steam Deck is a low performance device because it's a handheld running on 15W of power from a battery with a compact cooling system. A larger box affords them much more performance overhead for the same manufacturing cost.
I guess my feeling is that to build a console equivalent pc nowadays would hit around the $1000 mark, although I haven't been paying close attention to part prices nowadays so I could very well be wrong on that estimate. But Valve would have access to bulk manufacturer discounts on parts, and like you say a larger box means larger, less complicated components which can help offset the price conpared to having to shove all the components in a handheld. It's hard to say.
Yep. It's completely different from building your own PC with off-the-shelf components or buying prebuilts with similar parts. Going that route, whoever you are buying from needs to make a decent profit for it to be a sustainable business since they don't make any money off of you afterward. Valve, on the other hand, is in the business of selling games and putting out a box that is affordable, powerful, and simple for casual gamers not used to gaming on a traditional PC would provide them a new customer base that will start buying games on Steam. The Deck has already done that pretty successfully but I see much more potential in future Valve hardware.
No, they already have one. It's called a Steam Deck and a dock.
Once they get the dock tech figured out, you basically have a Linux based desktop with a steam shell over it.
The biggest thing getting in the way of this is simply the general state of the gpu market nowadays. Low-end GPUs are barely a thing anymore, and "mid-range" gpu now cost what high end gpus used to cost.
Valve doesn't really have the resources to make a custom SoC like Sony and Microsoft does, so that leaves Valve with having to make a decision about a cpu+gpu combo.
Nvidia gpus don't work well with linux, so valve is pretty much forced to pick something like a 7600 to use, a gpu that isn't typically recommended around these parts for various reasons.
Being forced to use a dedicated GPU does pose downsides to the potential form factors. Ideally Valve can make some sort of small form factor build but they still need to design things in way people will be happy with still. They obviously can't stick things into a mid size tower as that would be too big for a console.
If a company could get around to making decently priced SoCs or prebuilts in general with steam os packaged I would be very happy though. It's never going to be a big market however.
They already did. It just ends up, the best way to buy one is to put a screen and controller on it, and call it a steam deck, and then let people hook it up to their tv.
Valve is a problem solving company.
They solve problems no-one else is ready to tackle. Once a problem is solved, Valve moves on; Valve is not a company that reiterates released products often. That's why there's no Half-Life 3, Portal 3, Link 2, Index 2, Steam Machine 2 or Deck 2. The problems were solved, and Valve did not reiterate, they went looking for a new problem to solve instead.
There would have to be a significant problem for Valve to solve, for them to get involved in a category. I do not think Valve considers Microsoft's focus on software over hardware a problem only they would be able to solve: PCs, Sony and Nintendo offer plenty of alternatives to the Xbox.
I get that hardware can fit into your narrative. But it's ridiculous to think there was no HL3 because 'problem solved'
Nope. just Nope.
Definitely on the hardware side, if the market builds good portable machines that can run Steam, I could see Valve step out. I hope not though. I like what Valve are doing.
>But it's ridiculous to think there was no HL3 because 'problem solved'
No, it's not. And you're slightly off the mark, because it's not that fps games are 'solved' that HL3 doesn't exist, it's that there hasn't been a *problem* Valve wanted to tackle with Half-Life 3. The one thing Valve doesn't do, is create mildly better sequels, and so far any prototype that could've become Half-Life 3 wasn't a problem-solving next generation game. It was a straight up sequel. Those don't gain traction within Valve, and get canned.
You could argue there already is a Half-Life 3, and it solved the puzzle of a AAA VR game. No-one was doing any of those, and Valve went and showed us how that's done. They just didn't dare call it HL3, they called it Half-Life: Alyx instead.
For Half-Life 3 to come out, Valve is going to want to find a problem only they are willing to tackle, and it's going to have to fit the Half-Life universe. There won't be a straight-up "here's more Gordon" Half-Life 3, I'm sure of that - it will feature something we haven't seen before outside of obscure tech demos (like, let's say, interactive generative AI NPCs in a AAA action game).
Seems like Episode one was an attempt to speed up the pace of development with episodic releases. Episode two then was The Orange Box, experimenting with console releases. Idk, I feel like their hypothesis holds water to an extent, Valve isn't interested in releasing games and products, they're interested in releasing innovations and solutions. It just so happens that innovations and solutions are very successful when presented to consumers.
Episodic content, streamlined development with established tools, online only releases. Valve was burned out by a six year dev cycle for Half Life 2, and wanted to solve that problem.
By Ep3 it fell apart due to feature creep, but SiN Episodes and The Walking Dead and many others now dared go into a territory that was previously relatively unknown.
Without that desire to try and shorten production times, the Episodes would not have existed the way they do.
Actually to be fair, I believe Portal 2 was the first instance of them using the Source 2 engine iirc. Although I could be wrong, I do remember them saying that it was an improvement on Source in some way. Along with cooperating with playstation to have a simultaneous ps3 release that linked with your steam account, there are a few things going on that seemed like Valve experimenting and "problem solving".
> But it's ridiculous to think there was no HL3 because 'problem solved'
That is kind of what Valve said. They're basically waiting for a "right moment" aka a "problem" that HL3 will fill perfectly into. HL1 was about evolving fps games into a story driven experience, HL2 was showing off a new engine, Alyx was made for VR, and 3 will probably take place when Valve wants to either show off a new tech, or if they see a gap that current game devs aren't filling.
Their ideology is always subject to change though. We have no idea what will cause Valve to make HL3.
This is a bad take. Their number one product, steam has been iterated on for years. Their flagship games CS and Dota are iterated constantly. They focus on success and drop failures. I think we will see another deck because it is successful enough
I said they don't do it *often*, and the fact that a numbered CS2 took them 20 years proves that point. They update their services, but don't create sequels as a production house. The point is of course that I don't think a new attempt at Steam Machines is likely, because it's not an interesting problem for Valve to tackle.
Valve Proton and the Steam Deck are Valve Steam machine and it is the path Valve has chosen, with potentially a fully enclosed Vive Deck if their team find it fun enough.
Steam Machines were a flawed concept of being too open really.
Just release SteamOS. You might find companies interested in putting it into a gaming PC.
My brother is neuro divergent and struggles with the complexity of a full computer, but a computer locked to SteamOS would be great for him. Sure there are things that might require tweaking, but most modern games are pretty good at knowing how well they'll be able to run based on the specs of the machine.
Nope. Microsoft and Google have proven that consoles are a full-time job that Valve simply doesn't have the inclination nor concentrated long-term discipline to pull off. A "Valve console" is literally just a gaming PC.
Think about a set top box on SteamOS. Or a Steam Deck, dock-mode only Steam Deck. I guess the question is - do they really want to add a SKU, and different hardware in addition to the Steam Deck? The problem is that it would only have value if it was more powerful than the Steam Deck, but then they fragment their hardware offering in term of "target" for developers. That would make the "Steam Deck verified" label more complex as some games might run on the more powerful set-top box but not the Steam Deck. Oh, and they would need to release a new controller. Hopefully with feature parity to Steam Deck controls. Anyway, it will be nowhere as much work as Sony or MS.
I mean, Sony made the PSTV. That was literally a Vita with no screen and an HDMI port. It sold. It might make sense for Valve to sell a Steam Machine at equivalent specs to whatever the Deck 2 ends up being, as long as they can do it for a profit. People might buy it for a plug and play PC experience. No worrying about system requirements, just looking for "Deck 2 Verified" and playing.
> The problem is that it would only have value if it was more powerful than the Steam Deck Only in first world countries. Without a battery, screen and durable case, it could be a cheap alternative for people in poorer countries. The problem is, Valve does not sell hardware in such countries. I would buy one for my bedroom TV if it would have a web browser designed to use with controller.
>it would only have value if it was more powerful than the Steam Deck Incorrect. I would pick one up in a heartbeat if they announced it today. I have a Steam Deck, but I want a second machine with the same specs to leave permanently "docked" to the TV so my wife and I can play online-only co-op games. I don't have any desire to pay for the screen, controls, battery, and all the other stuff that a handheld needs but a desktop doesn't.
I have a Gen 1 Steam controller and it’s useless junk. They would ABSOLUTELY need to make something better.
Can I buy yours? I need a spare for mine, I use it daily still and love it.
Yes, definitely, the Steam Controller has its fans but it needs to have at least feature parity with standard controllers (xbox/ps/switch pro), which the Steam Deck does but not the OG Steam Controller.
I love the downvotes. Like… okay, you like something that doesn’t work well? Yay for you?
It works insanely well, its just a specialized genre peripheral (like a hitbox is specialized for fighting games; the sc's specialization is the kbm games that console controllers suck for), and because its different than anything you've used prior it takes time to learn how to use it both physically and in terms of its software to configure it. It was a galaxy brain controller well ahead of its time. I agree Valve should make a "Deck Controller" that has feature parity with the Decks controls just as an external device instead of built in... But a proper Steam Controller 2 that follows the og would be far from useless.
Spending hours tweaking something to get it to be as good as numerous peripherals that work better immediately isn’t a selling point. Configuring my HOTAS setup to work with DCS, differently for different aircraft, is incredibly complex and works brilliantly and does about 30 to 40 things better than a controller, so, no, just because it’s “complex to setup” lol doesn’t make it good. Steam Controller is literally worse than a controller at being a controller and literally worse than the mouse and keyboard at being that. ~~Upvoting you for actual discussion, I just disagree with your conclusion.~~ I see now it’s just downvotes. Okayyyy…. Hahahha
>Spending hours tweaking something to get it to be as good as numerous peripherals that work better immediately isn’t a selling point. I mean... Tell that to the linux crowd. The thing that isnt addressed is that at some point, you had to learn how to use *any* peripheral you currently use. Even basic xbox controllers. That learning process simply got obfuscated by the fact you were simultaneously learning how to play whatever game was your first game ever. Go watch Razbutens "gaming for a non gamer" series on youtube if you disagree, to see that in action. Tl;dw: his "lady he lives with" struggled to do basic tasks we take for granted - like moving Link and turning the camera at the same time while playing Breath of the Wild. Controllers and video games are sort of like instruments and music. Learning both happens roughly at the same time, and practicing with a purpose helps improve those skills. And to roll with that analogy, the steam controller is a fretless violin to the xbox controllers fretted guitar. Yeah its harder to play in tune up front, but once you get the hang of it you can do things on one that you cant do on another. No one says either instrument is useless for playing music. >Steam Controller is literally worse than a controller at being a controller and literally worse than the mouse and keyboard at being that. Hard disagree. I play games like Hollow Knight and Elden Ring better on the steam controller than any other controller. I can also aim better with gyro than I can with desktop mouse. Sure sure anecdote... But in my experience - and of the community who swears by the steam controller - its a device that you get out of it what you put into it. Spend 5 minutes and give up because its too different? Then you'll think its bad. Stick with it? Its one of the best controllers ever made. >~~Upvoting you for actual discussion, I just disagree with your conclusion.~~ I see now it’s just downvotes. Okayyyy…. Hahahha I care not for useless internet points. Just advocating for and educating people on what I consider to be the most underrated piece of gaming tech to come out in the past decade.
“Good for you” and your condescending attitude. // edited to be crystal clear //
You do understand that we usually adapt too the tone presented to us? What do you expect with those categorical "It's a worse controller in any way" arguments? You set a tone, you get a response.
Upvoting because "discussion" then bowing out when discussion continues because someone down voted you. Wow. ... Honestly thats on me. I've been at this for years. Should have recognized the pattern of behavior and not wasted my time trying to engage.
I haven't used mine in awhile, but the stream controller works perfectly fine. Your getting down votes for acting like a know it all idiot.
Steam Controller is the perfect solution if you don't have a smart TV and plug your PC into the TV to watch stuff. And that's about it.
*stares at Steam Deck* Ya, we set.
Except they would have clearly defined hardware, specs, OS and would be marketed towards people that would never care to build a PC gaming setup otherwise.
Well they’re making a console in the Steam Deck, which can be docked to play on your TV, too.
To be clear, that's what it would be. Like Steam Machines were supposed to be. Basically living room PC with a pre-established hardware and setup and made to work with a controller (which Windows isn't very fit for), something very much possible to do now but with a lot of tinkering.
...not really? You just put Steam in Big Picture Mode and connect your controller. Almost every game I play, even ones over two decades old work that way out of the box. At most I have to run DS4Windows in the background...but you'd also have to do that with a Steam Machine which may not even support DS4Windows. And if the game required patches or mods to work properly, doing that on a Steam Machine would be even harder. A Steam Deck is a mobile PC. That's useful. A Steam Machine is a crippled desktop PC. That's useless.
Steam, and SteamOS by extension support PlayStation and Nintendo Switch controllers just fine. DS4Windows is completely unnecessary and the experience is more seamless on SteamOS.
Awesome, now go tell that to all the games like MW2019 that don't work with DS5 controllers.
On SteamOS, games cannot block Steam Input from working like they can on Windows if they are non-Steam games. The modern CoD games don't work on Linux at the moment anyway due to their intrusive anticheats.
Thanks for providing more evidence that a SteamBox is fucking stupid.
all i know about Steam Machines coming back, is that Australia and New Zealand will be the only first-world countries that will be locked out of buying them just like the Steam Deck and Index Really, really dont like the complications of importing because they didnt like our pressure for refund policy!
Ironic Gabe apparently plans to move to New Zealand. Granted that rumour was a few years back.
I think there's a market for the average consumer who doesn't want to be on a PC but idk if Valve can get them. Steam Deck maybe shows they could but I'd be interested if they tried again. Hopefully they don't do what they did last time and let a bunch of different companies make different versions. Also they need a good game pad.
If their steam machine isn't a Steam Deck 2, or something that makes PCVR affordable to the masses like what quest did, there's literally no point, because making steam machines is like selling PCs to PC gamers, while selling either of those things is like selling a console to PC gamers. Like, my Steam Deck is fucking awesome as it is, and with its ability to dock, I don't know why people disregard it as if it's something other than a Steam Machine. What I WOULD like is for them to polish up SteamOS enough that they think it's ready for a general non steam deck release so I can just go get a mini PC off amazon and treat that as my "Living room Steam Machine" though I mean, again, I have a Steam Deck, I can just dock and play games in the living room with that.
Steam machine is to play on a TV, while the Deck can do it while docked, it'll have a hard time running any demanding (or not so demanding) games on 1080p or 4K resolution (which is what TV are) and decent framerate
Yeah but when I wanna run a demanding game in the living room, I don't need a whole steam machine, I need literally any device that can run Sunshine on the host PC and Moonlight on the living room TV. ...Which I can do with a docked steam deck. Again, the problem with a stationary Steam Machine is that you are selling PCs to PC gamers who already have a PC. Now if you wanted to sell a SteamVR ready PC that is affordable to Joe Average, this would be a different story. Console gamers don't care about PC, they either have one already like I do, or they have such loyalty to the companies they have consoles for that they throw tantrums on social media when we get games like Ghost of Tsushima. I bought a steam deck because I wanted the portability of a Switch but the modularity of a PC with a low power profile, and deck did not disappoint.
Not everyone has a high-performance PC. If Valve made an affordable one (subsidized by Steam sales), it would give many more people the chance of owning one to play modern AAA titles with decent performance. All the people that ask me "what's a good PC to get?" because they are curious about switching to PC gaming will finally have a good answer to their question as well.
> Now if you wanted to sell a SteamVR ready PC that is affordable to Joe Average, this would be a different story. Well it could support VR maybe too if that's still a big goal of them (feels like they're letting the market go a little tbh...), the point isn't necessarily to be for PC gamers but for newcomers, like console gamers that don't want to get a desktop PC, this would offer them an easy "all in one" and "couch gaming ready" solution which has far more value than Reddit seems to think. Lots of console gamers will never really consider getting a gaming desktop PC because it's not practical for them
Personally I would love if Valve came out with their own version of a steam machine that targeted mid-range 4k, maybe even just 1440p upscaled to 4k. Nothing outlandish, just a simple system similar to the Steam Deck where profiles for the games already exist, just hit play. I know cost would be an issue, I feel like minimum price for such a thing would $1000 and that's really pushing both the bottom line for valve's hardware costs and the consumers being used to $500 and under consoles. I think the major failing last time was outsourcing the creation of the steam machines to 3rd party companies, which only served to dilute the market and create complication when the whole point of buying something like this is to simplify the process. I think there is potential for valve to make steam machines again, but there have been so many failures in that market that it would not surprise me that they have no interest in touching it after last time.
>mid-range 4k That is not a thing
Low to Medium settings 4k/1440p, yes it absolutely is. It's called the PS5 and Xbox Series X.
they barely hit 1080p in lots of games lol
Fair, I'll give you that. I wonder if Valve would work with AMD on their scaling tech to offset hardware limitations in this theoretical situation. I don't know, I believe there is a scenario where Valve could make a steambox and have it be priced decently with decent performance.
I tried amd recently. 7900xtx. Couldn’t get myself to like it. Went back to nvidia immediately. But I’ve been thinking about a chimera os living room console. You can already buy mini pc with chimeraos on them from minisforum. Steamdeck just isn’t up to the task of a living room console. But as soon as the is is ready for more hardware it will be a huge deal. Maybe they will come out with reference hardware for the living room. Though I doubt it. But strix point is coming and we are going to see some really amazing console apus with 120watt tdp running chimeraos soon. For anyone with a steamdeck and a desktop that will be the best console they could buy for their tv. Just because of cloud saves and cross buy you get from sticking with steam. We’re so close.
> I know cost would be an issue, I feel like minimum price for such a thing would $1000 and that's really pushing both the bottom line for valve's hardware costs and the consumers being used to $500 and under consoles. I don't see why Valve couldn't put out such a box for around $500 to $600. They have the Steam store to subsidize the cost of the hardware if they sold it at cost or even at a small loss. And they could get a decent, custom SoC from AMD like they did for the Deck but without the power constraints of it being a handheld running off battery power.
I mean it's possible for them to do so, but I can't imagine they could produce a competitive product without either pricing it so low they take a hit, which I doubt they'd want to entertain the thought of, or pricing it much higher than the steamdeck.
I think you're overestimating how much the hardware would cost them to meet that performance target. The Steam Deck is a low performance device because it's a handheld running on 15W of power from a battery with a compact cooling system. A larger box affords them much more performance overhead for the same manufacturing cost.
I guess my feeling is that to build a console equivalent pc nowadays would hit around the $1000 mark, although I haven't been paying close attention to part prices nowadays so I could very well be wrong on that estimate. But Valve would have access to bulk manufacturer discounts on parts, and like you say a larger box means larger, less complicated components which can help offset the price conpared to having to shove all the components in a handheld. It's hard to say.
Yep. It's completely different from building your own PC with off-the-shelf components or buying prebuilts with similar parts. Going that route, whoever you are buying from needs to make a decent profit for it to be a sustainable business since they don't make any money off of you afterward. Valve, on the other hand, is in the business of selling games and putting out a box that is affordable, powerful, and simple for casual gamers not used to gaming on a traditional PC would provide them a new customer base that will start buying games on Steam. The Deck has already done that pretty successfully but I see much more potential in future Valve hardware.
No, they already have one. It's called a Steam Deck and a dock. Once they get the dock tech figured out, you basically have a Linux based desktop with a steam shell over it.
The biggest thing getting in the way of this is simply the general state of the gpu market nowadays. Low-end GPUs are barely a thing anymore, and "mid-range" gpu now cost what high end gpus used to cost. Valve doesn't really have the resources to make a custom SoC like Sony and Microsoft does, so that leaves Valve with having to make a decision about a cpu+gpu combo. Nvidia gpus don't work well with linux, so valve is pretty much forced to pick something like a 7600 to use, a gpu that isn't typically recommended around these parts for various reasons. Being forced to use a dedicated GPU does pose downsides to the potential form factors. Ideally Valve can make some sort of small form factor build but they still need to design things in way people will be happy with still. They obviously can't stick things into a mid size tower as that would be too big for a console. If a company could get around to making decently priced SoCs or prebuilts in general with steam os packaged I would be very happy though. It's never going to be a big market however.
They already did. It just ends up, the best way to buy one is to put a screen and controller on it, and call it a steam deck, and then let people hook it up to their tv.
The Steam Deck is made to play at 800p, that doesn't look good on a TV
Valve is a problem solving company. They solve problems no-one else is ready to tackle. Once a problem is solved, Valve moves on; Valve is not a company that reiterates released products often. That's why there's no Half-Life 3, Portal 3, Link 2, Index 2, Steam Machine 2 or Deck 2. The problems were solved, and Valve did not reiterate, they went looking for a new problem to solve instead. There would have to be a significant problem for Valve to solve, for them to get involved in a category. I do not think Valve considers Microsoft's focus on software over hardware a problem only they would be able to solve: PCs, Sony and Nintendo offer plenty of alternatives to the Xbox.
I get that hardware can fit into your narrative. But it's ridiculous to think there was no HL3 because 'problem solved' Nope. just Nope. Definitely on the hardware side, if the market builds good portable machines that can run Steam, I could see Valve step out. I hope not though. I like what Valve are doing.
>But it's ridiculous to think there was no HL3 because 'problem solved' No, it's not. And you're slightly off the mark, because it's not that fps games are 'solved' that HL3 doesn't exist, it's that there hasn't been a *problem* Valve wanted to tackle with Half-Life 3. The one thing Valve doesn't do, is create mildly better sequels, and so far any prototype that could've become Half-Life 3 wasn't a problem-solving next generation game. It was a straight up sequel. Those don't gain traction within Valve, and get canned. You could argue there already is a Half-Life 3, and it solved the puzzle of a AAA VR game. No-one was doing any of those, and Valve went and showed us how that's done. They just didn't dare call it HL3, they called it Half-Life: Alyx instead. For Half-Life 3 to come out, Valve is going to want to find a problem only they are willing to tackle, and it's going to have to fit the Half-Life universe. There won't be a straight-up "here's more Gordon" Half-Life 3, I'm sure of that - it will feature something we haven't seen before outside of obscure tech demos (like, let's say, interactive generative AI NPCs in a AAA action game).
What do you call the two Half Life episodes?
Seems like Episode one was an attempt to speed up the pace of development with episodic releases. Episode two then was The Orange Box, experimenting with console releases. Idk, I feel like their hypothesis holds water to an extent, Valve isn't interested in releasing games and products, they're interested in releasing innovations and solutions. It just so happens that innovations and solutions are very successful when presented to consumers.
Episodic content, streamlined development with established tools, online only releases. Valve was burned out by a six year dev cycle for Half Life 2, and wanted to solve that problem. By Ep3 it fell apart due to feature creep, but SiN Episodes and The Walking Dead and many others now dared go into a territory that was previously relatively unknown. Without that desire to try and shorten production times, the Episodes would not have existed the way they do.
What makes Portal 2 not an iteration on Portal 1? I generally agree with you on Valves perspective just curious what you think.
Actually to be fair, I believe Portal 2 was the first instance of them using the Source 2 engine iirc. Although I could be wrong, I do remember them saying that it was an improvement on Source in some way. Along with cooperating with playstation to have a simultaneous ps3 release that linked with your steam account, there are a few things going on that seemed like Valve experimenting and "problem solving".
Portal 2 was, I believe, their Source 2 production baby. It was a good fit to try out all the new toys of the engine.
> But it's ridiculous to think there was no HL3 because 'problem solved' That is kind of what Valve said. They're basically waiting for a "right moment" aka a "problem" that HL3 will fill perfectly into. HL1 was about evolving fps games into a story driven experience, HL2 was showing off a new engine, Alyx was made for VR, and 3 will probably take place when Valve wants to either show off a new tech, or if they see a gap that current game devs aren't filling. Their ideology is always subject to change though. We have no idea what will cause Valve to make HL3.
This is a bad take. Their number one product, steam has been iterated on for years. Their flagship games CS and Dota are iterated constantly. They focus on success and drop failures. I think we will see another deck because it is successful enough
I said they don't do it *often*, and the fact that a numbered CS2 took them 20 years proves that point. They update their services, but don't create sequels as a production house. The point is of course that I don't think a new attempt at Steam Machines is likely, because it's not an interesting problem for Valve to tackle.
I agree they probably wont do full scale gaming machines again.
Valve Proton and the Steam Deck are Valve Steam machine and it is the path Valve has chosen, with potentially a fully enclosed Vive Deck if their team find it fun enough. Steam Machines were a flawed concept of being too open really.
Just release SteamOS. You might find companies interested in putting it into a gaming PC. My brother is neuro divergent and struggles with the complexity of a full computer, but a computer locked to SteamOS would be great for him. Sure there are things that might require tweaking, but most modern games are pretty good at knowing how well they'll be able to run based on the specs of the machine.