Steam Box + SteamOS, more thoughts...
So. I had said before that I wasn't sure what performance on Steam Box would be like, relative to the Xbox One and PS4. After a bit more research I uncovered the SteamOS project. Which I postulate the Steam Box will be running. And, it is fundamentally just another Linux distro. And they will be allowing people to build their own Steam Boxes using that OS.
I think that last bit is a strategic flaw. Linux driver support has been historically shitty. But, if a big company, like Valve, were to jump in the game and control the hardware it could give manufacturers of the supported chipsets a reason to invest more in their Linux drivers. It is MUCH easier to target and optimize for one or a small number of hardware configurations than it is to target the entire Linux eco-system. And, with the OS being freely available, there will likely be more home-grown Steam Boxes than ones running "official" hardware. Without a fixed hardware base, I really don't see hardware vendors investing more in Linux support than they do today.
The official Steam OS page also talks about how Windows games will run on Steam Box. They won't. At least not directly. You'll need a Windows machine to effectively stream the game to your Steam Box.
Streaming presents another problem. And something I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that there will also be "render lag". Streaming is not an instantaneous process. To stream the image from your PC to the Steam Box and then to the TV first your PC needs to render it, (then maybe compress it, or maybe not), then send the data over your network to the Steam Box, then the Steam Box needs to render it to your display. If compression is done, you may get degraded picture quality, but if compressing is not done, the render lag may be more pronounced.
For competitive and hard core gamers, this will likely be the nail in the coffin. People have invested hundreds and even thousands of dollars into rigs that promise shaving 10's of milliseconds off of latency. Why would you turn around and pay $500 to ADD those 10's of milliseconds, if not more, of latency back into your gaming environment?
An Xbox One may cost me $500. But, for that $500 I'll be able to play every Xbox One game released without any additional charge beyond the cost of the game (some rather minor exceptions may apply). If I buy a Steam Box for the same $500, all I'm able to do out of the box is play Steam games that run on Linux. Which is, by a large margin, the losing category on Steam. There is also no guarantee that as new Linux based Steam games are released down the road that they will still run on the current hardware.
If I want access to effectively the full Steam catalogue I need a Windows based gaming computer as well. Which would have enabled me to play all of those games anyway. And there is degradation in performance from Streaming to play them through my Steam Box. And, that PC, no matter how much I paid for it, suffers from the hardware upgrade dilemma. Dump as much money as you want into top end hardware and you will still hit a point where you need to upgrade to play a certain title in the future.
Yes, buying a console is not really future-proofing anything. New consoles will eventually come out. Eventually games will no longer be released for the current one. But the difference is that IF a title is released for a console I own, I know that the game will run and have good reason to assume it will run well. With the cost of games being generally quite expensive, it is fairly important that should you choose to buy a game that it not only runs, but also runs well on the platform you purchased it for. This problem isn't new to the Steam Box, it is simply one it inherits from the PC. But it is one which I think should not be taken lightly when trying to draw comparisons between the Steam Box and these more traditional console devices.
Comparatively speaking, the Steam Box just seems like a weak alternative console gaming.
But, maybe I'm just missing the mark. Maybe gamers aren't the target market. Given that they are producing what seems to be advertised as a gaming console and they are in the market of selling games I find it hard to believe otherwise. But, just maybe this isn't truly intended as a gaming console after all. Maybe it is intended to take the all-in-one entertainment experience further than the Xbox One, but with a reduced focus on the gaming aspect.
I think that last bit is a strategic flaw. Linux driver support has been historically shitty. But, if a big company, like Valve, were to jump in the game and control the hardware it could give manufacturers of the supported chipsets a reason to invest more in their Linux drivers. It is MUCH easier to target and optimize for one or a small number of hardware configurations than it is to target the entire Linux eco-system. And, with the OS being freely available, there will likely be more home-grown Steam Boxes than ones running "official" hardware. Without a fixed hardware base, I really don't see hardware vendors investing more in Linux support than they do today.
The official Steam OS page also talks about how Windows games will run on Steam Box. They won't. At least not directly. You'll need a Windows machine to effectively stream the game to your Steam Box.
Streaming presents another problem. And something I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that there will also be "render lag". Streaming is not an instantaneous process. To stream the image from your PC to the Steam Box and then to the TV first your PC needs to render it, (then maybe compress it, or maybe not), then send the data over your network to the Steam Box, then the Steam Box needs to render it to your display. If compression is done, you may get degraded picture quality, but if compressing is not done, the render lag may be more pronounced.
For competitive and hard core gamers, this will likely be the nail in the coffin. People have invested hundreds and even thousands of dollars into rigs that promise shaving 10's of milliseconds off of latency. Why would you turn around and pay $500 to ADD those 10's of milliseconds, if not more, of latency back into your gaming environment?
An Xbox One may cost me $500. But, for that $500 I'll be able to play every Xbox One game released without any additional charge beyond the cost of the game (some rather minor exceptions may apply). If I buy a Steam Box for the same $500, all I'm able to do out of the box is play Steam games that run on Linux. Which is, by a large margin, the losing category on Steam. There is also no guarantee that as new Linux based Steam games are released down the road that they will still run on the current hardware.
If I want access to effectively the full Steam catalogue I need a Windows based gaming computer as well. Which would have enabled me to play all of those games anyway. And there is degradation in performance from Streaming to play them through my Steam Box. And, that PC, no matter how much I paid for it, suffers from the hardware upgrade dilemma. Dump as much money as you want into top end hardware and you will still hit a point where you need to upgrade to play a certain title in the future.
Yes, buying a console is not really future-proofing anything. New consoles will eventually come out. Eventually games will no longer be released for the current one. But the difference is that IF a title is released for a console I own, I know that the game will run and have good reason to assume it will run well. With the cost of games being generally quite expensive, it is fairly important that should you choose to buy a game that it not only runs, but also runs well on the platform you purchased it for. This problem isn't new to the Steam Box, it is simply one it inherits from the PC. But it is one which I think should not be taken lightly when trying to draw comparisons between the Steam Box and these more traditional console devices.
Comparatively speaking, the Steam Box just seems like a weak alternative console gaming.
But, maybe I'm just missing the mark. Maybe gamers aren't the target market. Given that they are producing what seems to be advertised as a gaming console and they are in the market of selling games I find it hard to believe otherwise. But, just maybe this isn't truly intended as a gaming console after all. Maybe it is intended to take the all-in-one entertainment experience further than the Xbox One, but with a reduced focus on the gaming aspect.
Comments
Post a Comment