Giant Bomb News

190 Comments

Gabe Newell Opens Up About Steam Box Plans

Really not sure how I feel about relevant news coming out of CES.

That was fast. The Verge caught up with Valve’s Gabe Newell, who spilled way more beans that you’d expect about Valve’s hardware plans in the future, which do include a box of some kind.

Newell is at CES in Las Vegas this week to meet with different companies about its hardware plans, and has come with a number of prototypes in tow.

“We think that there are pluses and minuses to open systems that could make things a little messier, it’s much more like herding cats, so we try to take the pieces where we’re going to add the best value and then encourage other people to do it,” said Newell. “So it tends to mean that a lot of people get involved. We’re not imposing a lot of restrictions on people on how they’re getting involved.”

This explains the Xi3 announcement. Xi3 will not be the last piece of hardware to have Steam support, but it’s also not the mythical Steam Box that we’ve been expecting Valve to produce itself.

That box does exist.

“We’ll come out with our own and we’ll sell it to consumers by ourselves,” he said. “That’ll be a Linux box, [and] if you want to install Windows you can. We’re not going to make it hard. This is not some locked box by any stretch of the imagination. We also think that a controller that has higher precision and lower latency is another interesting thing to have.”

The company is also experimenting with low-latency controller solutions, and some designs include a touch screen. It’s possible a controller could incorporate biometric data, as well. Valve's not sure if motion control has much more to it, either. All of Newell’s answers suggest there is significant experimentation happening at Valve, and it hasn’t nailed down specifics. How many companies can be this specific and vague at the same time and get away with it?

It’s worth reading the whole interview, by the way. Hopefully, we’ll have even more details soon. Exciting!

Patrick Klepek on Google+
190 Comments
  • 190 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Edited by MindChamber

As long as Valve can find a way to make a state of the art entertainment system that wont cost 2gs, and not sold lower than cost, then go for it. Otherwise we can say bye to all those awesome steam sales as a 500 dollar steambox with 2gs worth of tech will probably put them in a hole.

Btw Im using 2gs, and 500 as hypothetical numbers.

Edited by leinad44

I'm terrible when it comes to computers, so have never been able to build a gaming pc. So my gaming life has mostly been console based. Though, this means I've missed out on playing a bunch of cool looking games, console games enhanced and being able to enjoy what steam offers. So this sounds the sort of thing for people like me :D

Posted by FMinus

@Sooty said:

@FMinus said:

@PliggeTheFallen said:

I'm excited for Valve with the new Xi3 and the mysterious Steam Box. They always have great ideas and have shown they can take all those ideas and accomplish them in wonderful ways.

The basic Xi3 Piston costs $499 and can't run any games decently with the crap hardware that's stuffed inside, the proper one costs $999, no thanks, for something that's supposed to be a "console". And they say that the final SteamBox is based of of that $999 system so they will have a hard time selling it for that. Anything above $400 is too expensive to be playing games and streaming movies and music to your living room.

Final Steambox? none of this is final, I doubt it'll even be out until mid-late 2014, if even then.

Ya know there's people with HTPCs way over $400 in their living room, so that's a bit of a dumb thing to say. If you mean anything above $400 is too pricey for some, then yes that's true, but then again the PS3 at $500 was also too pricey for some most.

Not my words, go here; http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/7/3849284/piston-valve-steam-box-xi3

HTPC over $400 is in my view dumb, as HTPC mean nothing more then a streaming solution for all your media stuff, not gaming. Having a Gaming PC in the living room is another thing. That said, if you got a network, a NAS is the best solution, what a HTPC basically was supposed to be.

Posted by goobyman

I'm really interested to see what comes of this. I know it's about time for me to update my computer and this would be the perfect set up for someone such as myself. I already have a work laptop which can do any thing associated with the needs of the job, but to have access to my steam library on my tv... and the many perks of Steams holiday sales would be tremendous.

Posted by DoctorWelch

The future of games is going to be interesting.

Edited by Falconer

Half the things he said in that interview are laughable. Clearly he hates anything that has to do with corporate structure, or strict restrictions on product standards. It seems like what he says/does are done simply because he has a fundamental disagreement for how major corporations (more specifically, Microsoft) handle things.

Let me know when he stops talking like a crazy person. Or even more crazy, cause that'll be entertaining.

Posted by Double

While I'm not interested in the Steam Box now because I own a gaming PC, maybe it's something worth getting in the future. I hope it does well, but I'm just worried how much it's going to cost Valve because if it flops (which I hope is unlikely) they could take a big hit from it...

Posted by Pop

pretty cool news, I want to see what happens when it comes out, they gotta have some games that are free only if you buy the box. I hope it will still have mouse and keyboard controls cause I don't think all games will have controller support or maybe valve will not put their games on steam if they don't have it.

Posted by TPoppaPuff

It would've made sense if Valve had launched it in 2012. Considering how much is still completely up in the air about this machine means we won't see it released before the next gen consoles this year, and getting it out before the next generation of consoles is vital to the success of the device, I can't say things are looking good for it. I'm sure it will be a moderate success whenever it comes out along the same lines as the Wii U where it will turn a nice little profit for them but will ultimately not take any substantial marketshare from Microsoft or Sony. Their window of opportunity will close before they can release a product. With that said, in about four years they will get another chance with a new Steambox when the 720 and PS4 start to show their age. That's the one that will matter now.

Posted by TPoppaPuff

@Corvak said:

8-10 years ago, the general consensus (on the internet) was that a platform for digital purchases and downloads was a crazy idea that'd never succeed. Now Steam has millions of users and has the biggest market share of any PC gaming retailer.

Nobody said that 8-10 years ago. 16-20 years ago, sure, but nobody except a minority of psychopaths in 2003-2005 said that digital retail platform would never succeed. If that's what you heard in general on the internet, you were socializing in a very disturbing place.

Posted by peritus

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Corvak said:

8-10 years ago, the general consensus (on the internet) was that a platform for digital purchases and downloads was a crazy idea that'd never succeed. Now Steam has millions of users and has the biggest market share of any PC gaming retailer.

Nobody said that 8-10 years ago. 16-20 years ago, sure, but nobody except a minority of psychopaths in 2003-2005 said that digital retail platform would never succeed. If that's what you heard in general on the internet, you were socializing in a very disturbing place.

Time sure flies... But hes not far of, 10-12 years ago maybe.

Posted by ShaneDev

So far this all sounds really messy and not as cool as some people were thinking at first. I wonder if the Valve Steam box will just start with an immediate option to "Buy/install Windows now". I am sure they didn't want a licensing deal with MS but they probably want people to play as many games a possible. Also unless the Valve Steam box is the highest of the high end and is the most expensive I think their partners might feel cheated. In other words if the Valve box is the best spec and comes with Steam benefits and is reasonably priced why would you get anything else? Unless you just want Windows pre installed. I am sure it will start well but I doubt if this will be anything really big or go anywhere.

Posted by jackopm

When I was reading the interview, he talked a little about the low-end $99-or-so box that would be a game streaming device, and it sounded like it was going to be a local streaming solution (maybe only a local solution, maybe also with an internet streaming solution a la OnLive). I took that to mean it would be the mythical device that (I think) Ryan Davis wants, the thing that basically you plug into your TV, it wirelessly talks to your big gaming PC in the other room, and spits the visuals from that onto your living room screen, theoretically with pretty low latency as it's all local. Am I understanding that correctly, am I missing something, or am I just projecting what I want onto what Gabe said? Because if I can buy something that's basically an inexpensive slingbox that gets the picture from my massive gaming tower onto my living room TV without running a cable or lugging that thing back and forth, I'm in.

Posted by FuzzYLemoN

With this beard, Gabe has entered the sage phase of his life.

Edited by Nethlem

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Corvak said:

8-10 years ago, the general consensus (on the internet) was that a platform for digital purchases and downloads was a crazy idea that'd never succeed. Now Steam has millions of users and has the biggest market share of any PC gaming retailer.

Nobody said that 8-10 years ago. 16-20 years ago, sure, but nobody except a minority of psychopaths in 2003-2005 said that digital retail platform would never succeed. If that's what you heard in general on the internet, you were socializing in a very disturbing place.

Dude... 16-20 years ago most people didn't even know what this strange "Interwebz"thing had been that only a few people had back then trough expensive dial up without any flatrates. Back then spending money on the Internet had been considered something odd and dangerous to do (And most of the time you didn't even have the option), because nobody really did it on a large scale. Compared to today it had been the stone-age of Internet commercialization.

Corvak is pretty much spot on with his 8-10 year estimate, because it had been 2004 when Half Life 2 got released with the Steam requirement and Valve shutting down the WON Network forcing everybody to migrate to Steam. That in turn lead to players trying to build their own inofficial WON out of protest. Maybe you haven't been around back then, but i still remember the majority of PC Gamers being all kinds of pissed off about this transition (including myself) into forced DRM. Especially because "launch Steam" had been a crappy, horrible and unreliable mess of an resource hog. So nobody really thought it would go anywhere back then...

Edited by PenguinDust

It'll never replace the PC. Like vaudeville, they will be here forever.

(I'm just recording my rejection so I can look back and see just how wrong I was)

Edited by FMinus

@Double said:

While I'm not interested in the Steam Box now because I own a gaming PC, maybe it's something worth getting in the future. I hope it does well, but I'm just worried how much it's going to cost Valve because if it flops (which I hope is unlikely) they could take a big hit from it...

who knows what future brings, maybe we will all have a wrist watch that is so powerful as todays most powerful supercomputer where everything we need will be available with us all the time. People are open for that, but this sounds just like a mediocre ITX PC right now - reminds me of Shuttle, Falcon Northwest or Alienware.

There's always a market for pre-build PCs. Question is what they do with the software side. A dedicated Steam box running Linux is not the solution for everyone knowing the ecosystem. It will still be a PC and there will still be more PCs running Windows, the Linux share might jump because of the Steambox but that jump is all there will be.

Developers wont all of a sudden change their minds and develop specifically for it, it's way to risky, OSX (Unix in other words) has been on x86 platform now for about 10 years now, the hardware in "most" Macs can handle gaming just fine and is identical to the one in Windows PCs, yet you don't see much games being released for that platform at all, so why would they jump now to Linux, because there's a small factor PC on the market that comes pre-installed with Linux and Steam? Doubtful.

Also doubtful that they can fit any serious PC market hardware and keep the price low, even if they buy in bulk like mad.

If it's just another closed console like platform, well fuck it then, I don't need a 4th player in the mix, and at the end of the day I'll stick to what has most support and to my old trite and true PC which I will build myself every 3-4 years.

Frankly I don't even know what the problem is at VALVe, they're making Windows 8 look like the boo man of the industry when in fact is just Windows 7 with a new start menu and improvements. They and many might not like the new Metro look, but it's just a stupid excuse to bash Microsoft really. Took me and my 62 year old father about 1 days to get used to Windows 8, neither of us had the problems, he even discovered some tricks I didn't know, and he's a complete computer idiot.

VALVe specifically Mr. Gabe is pushing similarities with Don Quixote, instead of windmills he's fighting Microsoft as if it's the biggest baddest dragon out there when there is no need to do that what-so-ever. Just because Windows 8 has an in-build app store (which I haven't used a single time since Windows 8 release) doesn't mean Steam will be banned or will be forgotten.

Posted by CosmicQueso

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Corvak said:

8-10 years ago, the general consensus (on the internet) was that a platform for digital purchases and downloads was a crazy idea that'd never succeed. Now Steam has millions of users and has the biggest market share of any PC gaming retailer.

Nobody said that 8-10 years ago. 16-20 years ago, sure, but nobody except a minority of psychopaths in 2003-2005 said that digital retail platform would never succeed. If that's what you heard in general on the internet, you were socializing in a very disturbing place.

Steam launched in 2003 and there was mass hysteria with people saying they'd never use it and would never give up their physical disks. That was 10 years ago. Then, in 2005-06 and the release of the current gen consoles the PC was pronounced dead forever.

So yeah, 8-10 years ago is absolutely correct.

Posted by ButteredToast

@Double said:

While I'm not interested in the Steam Box now because I own a gaming PC, maybe it's something worth getting in the future. I hope it does well, but I'm just worried how much it's going to cost Valve because if it flops (which I hope is unlikely) they could take a big hit from it...

The box is basically a streamlined PC that looks like it belongs in the living room (which is what the xbox or ps3 are), but with the added benefit that you can actually treat it like a PC should you want (assuming Gabe ain't lyin'). Since Valve partnered with other companies to produce these boxes, the heavy-lifting is taken off their shoulders from a production perspective.

I'm more interested in seeing what happens to the entire Steam ecosystem over time if these things take off. With a few exceptions (ex: the offline mode is a bit shit), Steam is a really tight distribution platform for not only game devs but modders and content creators as well. If they expand their market on the hardware side AND it has the added benefit of being useful as a production machine, you could create a new market segment where console-owners can take part in all of the things that give PC games serious longevity; the ability to use mods, create and distribute their own content, quicker and more numerous updates, etc.

Edited by TPoppaPuff

@CosmicQueso said:

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Corvak said:

8-10 years ago, the general consensus (on the internet) was that a platform for digital purchases and downloads was a crazy idea that'd never succeed. Now Steam has millions of users and has the biggest market share of any PC gaming retailer.

Nobody said that 8-10 years ago. 16-20 years ago, sure, but nobody except a minority of psychopaths in 2003-2005 said that digital retail platform would never succeed. If that's what you heard in general on the internet, you were socializing in a very disturbing place.

Steam launched in 2003 and there was mass hysteria with people saying they'd never use it and would never give up their physical disks. That was 10 years ago. Then, in 2005-06 and the release of the current gen consoles the PC was pronounced dead forever.

So yeah, 8-10 years ago is absolutely correct.

They said Steam sucked ass because at the time it did (and because of their restrictive policies, still has a ways to go) and many people said Steam would never make it because based on all the evidence at the time it shouldn't have. That does not mean all digital distribution services wouldn't succeed. Hell, D2D started in 2004 and grew exponentially in the first few years. The biggest reason it hasn't gotten bigger is thanks to Steam creating a monopoly through their policies and eating the entire marketshare and Gamefly can't compete with that. In any event many people at that time were more than willing to use online distribution services nine years ago. Some people preferred the physical copy, but even then most didn't think it wouldn't catch on at all. Hell, Halo 2's DLC on original Xbox was one of the most popular games at the time in all of online gaming. On Xbox 360 Geometry Wars was the indisputed best game on the system and sold plenty. And I'm sure that many people didn't think it would catch on quite as fast as it did, but that doesn't mean they outright thought it would never gain popularity. The skepticism of a select few does not represent the opinions of the many.

Sure, there were morons who said digital distribution would never make it. They still don't think it will make it. They didn't represent the popular consensus then and they still don't now.

EDIT: Also, people said PC gaming was dead forever with the launch of the PS2 in 2000.

Edited by TPoppaPuff

@peritus said:

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Corvak said:

8-10 years ago, the general consensus (on the internet) was that a platform for digital purchases and downloads was a crazy idea that'd never succeed. Now Steam has millions of users and has the biggest market share of any PC gaming retailer.

Nobody said that 8-10 years ago. 16-20 years ago, sure, but nobody except a minority of psychopaths in 2003-2005 said that digital retail platform would never succeed. If that's what you heard in general on the internet, you were socializing in a very disturbing place.

Time sure flies... But hes not far of, 10-12 years ago maybe.

I'll accept that. 2001-2002ish is fair as many people who did game never even played a game online at the time and tons of people were still on modems or dsl.

Again, people said that about Steam, not about online distribution. Most people who weren't delusional lunatics said "Yeah, online distribution will take off, just not anytime soon." What they didn't say was "Downloading games is pure insanity. It will never happen." Furthermore the issue with Steam was it's implementation and supplemental issues with the platform, not from the notion of online purchases. Issues like it being clunky, running like ass, and taking up too much overhead. Maybe you weren't around back then, but those who frequented less immature forums didn't hear so much of this nonsense.

Posted by bellgloom

@IntoTheN1ght said:

Some of the most popular games right now are not even on Steam, League of Legends, Blizzard games, most EA games, Minecraft and many more.

did you miss the part where it's a computer? you wanna play mass effect 3? open a web browser and download origin.

Posted by SharkMan

@BestUsernameEver

@SharkMan said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

Strange how against windows 8 he is, but the box plans seem cool.

Here's my concern though, when asked about a netflix app being available on the box, he said "Absolutely, you can open a web browser and do whatever you want." What if I don't want to fiddle with a web browser on a TV though? Isn't this box supposed to be a TV solution first and foremost? Also, the details about you being able to install windows if you like just make is sound like a tiny, steam branded PC, I don't want a tiny PC, I want a well made, fast console.

considering how much its bombing in the market, color me not surprised.

What he said in the interview is complete speculation BS, no one knows full figures of adoption, trading and business purchases. He's getting into hot water if he thinks he can go to linux and compete with the Windows market.

I'm sure no one has even read the entire article about this, considering you are missing the point that Gabe says you can install windows on it if you want (snide comment reaction, sorry), they haven't said a peep about linux since September. I'm sure they haven't been twiddling their thumbs in regard to games not running on linux and their objective to correct this. What is so hard to understand a virtualized windows environment running inside of a linux based steam program, programmed by some of the smartest programming minds in the world.

and the bit about windows 8 being a failure, is no secret just google what i said right there, "windows 8" "failure" link i'm not talking about total numbers or business and consumer relative conversion numbers. The president leaving after the launch, the "metro" garbage that no one asked for, being on non-touch screen computers, and not being able to scroll with a mouse-wheel on launch. sure there are some pretty cool things with 8 like the advanced task manager options, but i don't see anything in 8 that warranted an upgrade from 7, except higher system requirements, and pretty much all of 7's patches.

journalists realize this as well, they cant say anything bad about it other than its going to be a tough sell with "metro" because no one knows what the heck it is, many people don't even know its windows.

Posted by Seshi

Gabe looks hot with beard.

Edited by FMinus

@SharkMan said:

@BestUsernameEver

@SharkMan said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

Strange how against windows 8 he is, but the box plans seem cool.

Here's my concern though, when asked about a netflix app being available on the box, he said "Absolutely, you can open a web browser and do whatever you want." What if I don't want to fiddle with a web browser on a TV though? Isn't this box supposed to be a TV solution first and foremost? Also, the details about you being able to install windows if you like just make is sound like a tiny, steam branded PC, I don't want a tiny PC, I want a well made, fast console.

considering how much its bombing in the market, color me not surprised.

What he said in the interview is complete speculation BS, no one knows full figures of adoption, trading and business purchases. He's getting into hot water if he thinks he can go to linux and compete with the Windows market.

I'm sure no one has even read the entire article about this, considering you are missing the point that Gabe says you can install windows on it if you want (snide comment reaction, sorry), they haven't said a peep about linux since September. I'm sure they haven't been twiddling their thumbs in regard to games not running on linux and their objective to correct this. What is so hard to understand a virtualized windows environment running inside of a linux based steam program, programmed by some of the smartest programming minds in the world.

and the bit about windows 8 being a failure, is no secret just google what i said right there, "windows 8" "failure" link i'm not talking about total numbers or business and consumer relative conversion numbers. The president leaving after the launch, the "metro" garbage that no one asked for, being on non-touch screen computers, and not being able to scroll with a mouse-wheel on launch. sure there are some pretty cool things with 8 like the advanced task manager options, but i don't see anything in 8 that warranted an upgrade from 7, except higher system requirements, and pretty much all of 7's patches.

journalists realize this as well, they cant say anything bad about it other than its going to be a tough sell with "metro" because no one knows what the heck it is, many people don't even know its windows.

60 million Windows 8 licenses sold

I don't know how this is failing, being on-par with Windows 7, may it be OEM or retail, new PCs ship with that, Windows 8 is getting spread more and more. There was the same drama over 7 albeit a bit smaller, and look where it's at. Gabe is just sad with his anti-Windows comments and shit, when soon Windows 8 will be on the 2nd spot on Steam OS charts, and probably 1st in a years time.

1. Windows 7 x64 56.35%

2. Windows 7 x86 14.12%

3. Windows XP x86 10.03%

4. Windows 8 x64 6.33%

....

12. Ubuntu (Linux) 0.29%

And then you have to ask yourself if the man is serious about trying to shift the gaming industry to switch to Linux with the release of a Steam branded Linux box. I think he is living in a fairy tale world. Even if Windows 8 fails more as any Windows OS failed in the history it will still be installed on about million more PCs as all Linux distros together.

Posted by brokenpilot

So here's what this article means in summary: NOTHING.

Posted by HellknightLeon

Good info so far. If we want it or not it seems to be on the way. Also I don't feel like this is going to take away from the "hardcore" PC. I want this if only to see what It means for Steam and to see what I can do with it along with my OP PC. In no way will I use this as a stand alone. I can't wait to see and I hope the best.. I just don't know what that might be.

Edited by TinyGrasshopper

@FMinus: It's 0.8%. You have to add all the versions and x86/x64 together. That falls in line with the general perception of usage stats in other areas like web browser usage. Web browser usage has gone up slightly in recent years though, from 1.25% to 2% depending on the counter.

Considering it was an invitation only closed beta for a while and only just became a public beta, and also considering there's only a small subset of the Linux games that are out on it https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8495-OKZC-0159 that still seems kinda impressive to me.

It's true though, compared to other folks that's not a lot. But I don't care it just has to be enough for me to get the games I want. It seems these days that's enough to get the indie games I want and it's gonna take years and years for the games I want to get here, just like it took years and years for Steam itself to get here. (Most of the game support we have now seems to be because of Unity's new Linux support) But Epic and id backed Linux for awhile, before they realised they were a few years too early. I'm sure they'll come back around. And we are getting a Blizzard game this year so that's cool. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI2ODE

As far as people I know, they'll be happy to move to Linux Steam as soon as *their* Valve game or their source game gets the port. So I'm sure once Dota 2 gets a port, the number'll bump up and once CS:GO, L4D2 and Garry's Mod comes up, the same thing will happen

Posted by BestUsernameEver

@FMinus said:

@SharkMan said:

@BestUsernameEver

@SharkMan said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

Strange how against windows 8 he is, but the box plans seem cool.

Here's my concern though, when asked about a netflix app being available on the box, he said "Absolutely, you can open a web browser and do whatever you want." What if I don't want to fiddle with a web browser on a TV though? Isn't this box supposed to be a TV solution first and foremost? Also, the details about you being able to install windows if you like just make is sound like a tiny, steam branded PC, I don't want a tiny PC, I want a well made, fast console.

considering how much its bombing in the market, color me not surprised.

What he said in the interview is complete speculation BS, no one knows full figures of adoption, trading and business purchases. He's getting into hot water if he thinks he can go to linux and compete with the Windows market.

I'm sure no one has even read the entire article about this, considering you are missing the point that Gabe says you can install windows on it if you want (snide comment reaction, sorry), they haven't said a peep about linux since September. I'm sure they haven't been twiddling their thumbs in regard to games not running on linux and their objective to correct this. What is so hard to understand a virtualized windows environment running inside of a linux based steam program, programmed by some of the smartest programming minds in the world.

and the bit about windows 8 being a failure, is no secret just google what i said right there, "windows 8" "failure" link i'm not talking about total numbers or business and consumer relative conversion numbers. The president leaving after the launch, the "metro" garbage that no one asked for, being on non-touch screen computers, and not being able to scroll with a mouse-wheel on launch. sure there are some pretty cool things with 8 like the advanced task manager options, but i don't see anything in 8 that warranted an upgrade from 7, except higher system requirements, and pretty much all of 7's patches.

journalists realize this as well, they cant say anything bad about it other than its going to be a tough sell with "metro" because no one knows what the heck it is, many people don't even know its windows.

60 million Windows 8 licenses sold

I don't know how this is failing, being on-par with Windows 7, may it be OEM or retail, new PCs ship with that, Windows 8 is getting spread more and more. There was the same drama over 7 albeit a bit smaller, and look where it's at. Gabe is just sad with his anti-Windows comments and shit, when soon Windows 8 will be on the 2nd spot on Steam OS charts, and probably 1st in a years time.

1. Windows 7 x64 56.35%

2. Windows 7 x86 14.12%

3. Windows XP x86 10.03%

4. Windows 8 x64 6.33%

....

12. Ubuntu (Linux) 0.29%

And then you have to ask yourself if the man is serious about trying to shift the gaming industry to switch to Linux with the release of a Steam branded Linux box. I think he is living in a fairy tale world. Even if Windows 8 fails more as any Windows OS failed in the history it will still be installed on about million more PCs as all Linux distros together.

Thank you for bringing sense into this, people love drama.

Posted by mazik765

Gabe Newell looks infinitely less hideous with a beard.

Posted by FMinus

@TinyGrasshopper said:

@FMinus: It's 0.8%. You have to add all the versions and x86/x64 together. That falls in line with the general perception of usage stats in other areas like web browser usage. Web browser usage has gone up slightly in recent years though, from 1.25% to 2% depending on the counter.

Considering it was an invitation only closed beta for a while and only just became a public beta, and also considering there's only a small subset of the Linux games that are out on it https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8495-OKZC-0159 that still seems kinda impressive to me.

It's true though, compared to other folks that's not a lot. But I don't care it just has to be enough for me to get the games I want. It seems these days that's enough to get the indie games I want and it's gonna take years and years for the games I want to get here, just like it took years and years for Steam itself to get here. (Most of the game support we have now seems to be because of Unity's new Linux support) But Epic and id backed Linux for awhile, before they realised they were a few years too early. I'm sure they'll come back around. And we are getting a Blizzard game this year so that's cool. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI2ODE

As far as people I know, they'll be happy to move to Linux Steam as soon as *their* Valve game or their source game gets the port. So I'm sure once Dota 2 gets a port, the number'll bump up and once CS:GO, L4D2 and Garry's Mod comes up, the same thing will happen

Most indy games on that list of which about 10 have a "game" status in my book, the others are time-waster smartphone like games which you play 5 minutes while you wait for your eggs to boil.

There's certainly games for Linux, but it pales in comparison to Windows. Why would developers switch from Windows to Linux is the question, they already handle PC gaming as the stray dog outside and rather produce games for consoles, and all the PC gets most of the time is shitty ports - and now you expect them to go even further and bring this shitty ports to Linux too, when it's like 0.6% Linux vs. 80% Windows in OS population or 2% vs 78% in a years time? I just don't think that will happen sorry.

That Blizzard game might be fine, but you see what you doing here, you like one game that is coming out for Linux in 2013 and I can link you about 50 games that are coming out for Windows, and I know there will be more games for both in the end. That said, most Linux games are also available on Windows etc.

If you're happy with Linux it's fine, I'm still saying if you're a gamer, well Windows is your platform.

Edited by TinyGrasshopper

@FMinus said:

@TinyGrasshopper said:

@FMinus: It's 0.8%. You have to add all the versions and x86/x64 together. That falls in line with the general perception of usage stats in other areas like web browser usage. Web browser usage has gone up slightly in recent years though, from 1.25% to 2% depending on the counter.

Considering it was an invitation only closed beta for a while and only just became a public beta, and also considering there's only a small subset of the Linux games that are out on it https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8495-OKZC-0159 that still seems kinda impressive to me.

It's true though, compared to other folks that's not a lot. But I don't care it just has to be enough for me to get the games I want. It seems these days that's enough to get the indie games I want and it's gonna take years and years for the games I want to get here, just like it took years and years for Steam itself to get here. (Most of the game support we have now seems to be because of Unity's new Linux support) But Epic and id backed Linux for awhile, before they realised they were a few years too early. I'm sure they'll come back around. And we are getting a Blizzard game this year so that's cool. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI2ODE

As far as people I know, they'll be happy to move to Linux Steam as soon as *their* Valve game or their source game gets the port. So I'm sure once Dota 2 gets a port, the number'll bump up and once CS:GO, L4D2 and Garry's Mod comes up, the same thing will happen

Most indy games on that list of which about 10 have a "game" status in my book, the others are time-waster smartphone like games which you play 5 minutes while you wait for your eggs to boil.

There's certainly games for Linux, but it pales in comparison to Windows. Why would developers switch from Windows to Linux is the question, they already handle PC gaming as the stray dog outside and rather produce games for consoles, and all the PC gets most of the time is shitty ports - and now you expect them to go even further and bring this shitty ports to Linux too, when it's like 0.6% Linux vs. 80% Windows in OS population or 2% vs 78% in a years time? I just don't think that will happen sorry.

That Blizzard game might be fine, but you see what you doing here, you like one game that is coming out for Linux in 2013 and I can link you about 50 games that are coming out for Windows, and I know there will be more games for both in the end. That said, most Linux games are also available on Windows etc.

If you're happy with Linux it's fine, I'm still saying if you're a gamer, well Windows is your platform.

Well from the conversation on the bombcast, which I agree with, with rising dev costs you're going to see fewer big budget games and the market is swinging around to the time wasters.

As for the sentiment about the PC being a second class citizen, I think that's a 2-year old sentiment. Nowadays, the PC games are perfectly competent, they usually look better, come out day and date, and it's very rare to hear a story about a PC game having a different release date or not getting DLC.

And it sounds outlandish about the devs supporting Linux when it doesn't sound like a wise choice, but that's exactly what's happening, but again only with indies. Mainly because that 0.8% is a substantial market for an indie game. As that continues to happen, you're going to see increasingly larger studios come around, but it will take another 5 years or so. The very biggest releases will never come around because their costs make them so conservative.

As for the Blizzard release, a link like that is important, because it's a sign for Linux gaming. People used to say Steam would NEVER be out on Linux, even though Linux gamers begged for years. People would say Blizzard would NEVER put out a game on Linux even though people begged for WoW on Linux for years. But things are changing.

My expectations are managed as far as steambox is concerned. It's going to take forever to come out, be Linux only, nice hardware and feature only about 100 games at launch, almost all small indie titles, with only a few bigger 3D games, like Serious Sam 3 (if you can call SS3 a big game). As the library grows it will be almost all small indie games. If anything you might see an unreal engine, id engine release or cryengine release here or there (probably not an actual game from them but a smaller studio using those engines), but it's going to stay like that for years.

It's audience will be small, consisting only of older PC gamers who are getting tired of upgrading PCs (like me). Almost all those people will either dual boot it to put Windows on, or wipe it to put Windows on it, even though Valve's Linux (mostly likely a custom Ubuntu, what else would it be) would be a much more seamless experience with all the unnecessary packages pulled out and booting straight into big picture. The only thing that might throw the success of the platform out the window is when a 3rd party starts shipping a dual boot box, keeping the linux on there just to appease Valve, then everyone will just buy that box, keep using Windows and nothing will change.

As for me, I like gaming but I like Linux more. Windows is just a PC gaming tax as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by SecularBaron

I'm on board. Hope this turns out well.

Posted by yurock86

can't wait so long for half life 3 :)

Posted by Wokisan

I'm sure plenty of peeps are excited about this....but its gotten to the point that all I want to hear from Valve is something about Half-life 3. Sad but true.

Posted by Ivoldir

From what I've been reading in the comments, a lot of users are (unsurprisingly) unfamiliar with Linux, let alone Valve's testing on Ubuntu (a Linux distro). Currently, Valve is working on Linux version of their Steam platform along with a Linux version of Left 4 Dead 2 (both in Beta).

According to their testing, and after adapting L4D2 to better use OpenGL (whereas the Windows version uses DirectX), they've noticed that the Linux version actually outperform it's Windows counterpart.

Overall, their blog (although not updated as much as I'd like) does give some decent insight into their development towards supporting Linux. http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/

Posted by jasondesante

funny how the verge interviews gabe then 1,000,000 other sites copy paste their exclusive interview

Posted by gbrading

Look, Valve can do whatever they want after they finish Half-Life. But I want them to finish Half-Life. Correction: I need them to finish Half-Life. I know that seemingly nobody at the company wants to touch Gordon Freeman with a barge pole, but I want them to. If Valve are still a games developer, I want them to develop more games.

Posted by Omegus

This I super cool, I got on the Linux Beta . SS3 runs great But all my developers need to wake up and update their linux versions on steam. There are 100+ games they need to update. I really cant wait for this steambox. Half-life 3 on Linux.

Posted by Grand

@mnzy said:

That interview is all over the place, he talked about everything and said nothing.

It's called "Splitting Hares". Bill Clinton was a GOD at splitting hairs.