And not that I complain. The industry is slowly starting to re-learn the lessons of the past: if you rush stuff, games or not, the result tend to be pretty crappy. Cue BF4.
The biggest questions on SM's are still the same old ones: control input and Linux support for games. And given more time, these things will be better.
If SteamOS is Debian/Linux then my point is still valid, Linux support doesn't matter because it is what it is. Do you honestly believe that they are going to make a system that doesn't have Linux support if it is based on Linux?
You've got it backwards. Mondozai is saying that not many games support Linux. Since SteamOS is just a Linux distro, that means not many games support SteamOS.
Linux support in games is indeed critical to the success of steam machines...
Steam now (or will soon, I've seen it in the steam news) supports LAN streaming of games between computers logged in with the same user. Basically virtual desktop for the game. And while it currently supports only windows as host, it supports linux and mac os as clients. This means that as long as you have a PC in the house, a weak steambox on linux may still do what it needs to do to be a casual gaming platform, even if games don't support linux.
Of course the latency will probably not be acceptable for competitive multiplayer gamers (especially FPS), but it's fine for casual gamers. After all, competitive players will not use that controller or play from the couch, and they're a minority.
It won't be a big seller when it launches, but it will pick up when people are tired of the underpowered consoles and see what a $500 midrange PC can do. Native 4k gaming will be possible at around $500 in the next 2-3 years. That's the system seller. People need to justify that big 4k screen.
The problem I have is that I struggle to justify spending gaming PC money on a PC that only does games. I put a lot of money into my PC, sure, and a lot of that delivers a great gaming experience, but this PC is also a workstation for me. I put in all this horsepower for a wide range of tasks. Therefore, I could justify the cost. But I really can't see myself or anyone really investing so much money into a PC that they then just shove under their TV and only use for the single purpose of gaming.
I think it just makes a lot more sense to run an HDMI cable out to the TV and play that way, or if home layout makes that difficult, building a small, quiet, $300-ish HTPC for streaming. Because, if you don't have a gaming-capable computer, why would you buy/build one and just stuff it under the TV instead of using it for everything, and if you do have one already, why would you spend so much on another when streaming will be perfectly acceptable and much cheaper?
There's just a lot better solutions to the problems that Steam Machines are being designed to solve. As much as I want PC gaming to be simpler and more foolproof like console gaming, I'm skeptical. Because Steam Machines don't solve any of the problems inherent in developing games for PC versus console.
Valve's streaming solution works very well. I conducted some tests between two wirelessly connected PCs and in most cases it worked nicely. I used wireless just so I could see worst case scenario on my network. The input lag was not noticeable (I perceived none). There was jerkyness in only one title and it was very minor and cleared up quickly. Color banding occurs during dark scenes. I think streaming will be the real home run assuming the user has a decent gaming rig somewhere in the home.
I will root for Valve and hope the OS goes somewhere but I run Linux all day and they have some serious hurdles to make it consumer ready. I have a stack of wireless adapters that only work with windows. A couple I bought because reviews stated Linux support only to find out the vendor had switched to another chipset. Stuff like that and lack of software will be hard to overcome.
I think streaming could be a real hit for people like myself and dstarr3, I would really rather just play most games with a kb and mouse at the same desk where I get other stuff done (photography post processing etc)... But I'll be all over streaming if I can buy a cheap box that allows me to stream games that are big screen friendly like console ports, party games, etc. Would never invest in a dedicated HTPC (my DVR, Chromecast, etc meet all my needs) but I'll happily jump on the streaming bandwagon.
What games did you test? Obviously something like an FPS will have higher perception of latency than say, a point and click RPG :)
I for example an incapable of playing any game with vsync enabled, which at a solid 60Hz typically adds a worst case of about 48ms of latency (3 queued frames ahead), but often less. I've heard that the average latency just from the streaming adds about 75ms of latency on a wired connection. For me this would be completely unplayable. TVs often also have (sometimes significantly) worse latency than a monitor, especially those for gaming.
I'd like to try the streaming myself, but at this point I cannot even imagine it being acceptable for me :(
I say try it. Steam Streaming is out of beta, so anyone can use it now.
Your total latency will come down to your input device(s), gaming PC, network, streaming PC, and its display. A lot can go wrong, but in my testing at home, nothing did. I tested on two gaming PCs (as the 1920x1200 sources) and streamed to five different PCs (mix of wired and wireless). In general, the wired connection always added about 20ms to the experience while wireless was a range of 35-55ms.
In total with all parts considered, it's probably gets as high as 75ms over wireless, but the connection itself does not add that much latency which surprised me greatly. You won't be happy if you expect twitch-perfect latency from a dedicated gaming machine, but for everything else, it's really damn good.
What are the exact client requirements? I don't really have a spare laptop that's recent enough to just try it myself (old netbook and a Core Duo are the only laptops around here)... I'm wondering how cheap they can make the client boxes tho. For $200 or less I'd get one just to try it and see how it evolves.
Any bets on the delay stemming from the imminent most to MIR from X11 and Valve not wanting to be stuck supporting two display drivers for the next several years?
Except more than half of the games supporting mantle are new ea games, which won't be on steam anyways. Waiting for Mantle is probably one of the hurdles though. From a price perspective, waiting for ddr4 amd cpu's, or something better from intel also makes sense from a low end machine standpoint.
Only real problem I have is that this is further fragmenting the pc market which is already an afterthought for many people. Valve needs to provide something compelling. So good is makes the xbox one and ps4 and pc gaming look bad. With at least one or two exclusives that are 9/10 or better quality games.
Their controller is interesting. the game streaming is interesting. I don't think either is enough on it's own. If they had a VR headset ready to go, full multimedia support, a big games library, Half life 3, and sweet pricing, I'm still not sure it would be enough.
I'm currently playing the following games on/off. Battlefield 4, Titanfall, Hearthstone, Diablo 3. See the problem?
I'm looking forward to, Dragon Age, Destiny, Halo Next. My kids are waiting for PvZ Warfare on PC, otherwise they play minecraft and skyrim and lego lord of the rings.
So in all of that, steam has skyrim and lego games. Don't get me wrong, I have tonnes of games on steam, I love steam, but it's nowhere near being my only gaming service. The politics involved and the 'platform exclusives', 'store exclusives' etc are not going away unless something turns the whole market upside down. I don't think steam boxes are going to do that. At least not overnight.
What they probably need is a very cheap streaming-only steam machine (which they've talked about, but I don't think such a machine was amongst the initial ones they revealed). When streaming, SteamOS has access to your entire library of Windows games, so in its purest form such a box fills the role of bringing your whole Steam library into your living room.
That's what I'd buy. $200 or less and I don't even care if it isn't perfect out of the box... Any more and it better be, I can't be bothered to go build a machine just to test the streaming aspect. I imagine many will have spare laptops suitable for that but how many would bother?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
Back to Article
RaistlinZ - Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - link
Better they delay it then release a "beta" product at full retail price.Alexey291 - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link
Pretty much this yes.Alexvrb - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link
It's Steam, people will be happy if they can manage to avoid pre-alpha status when it's launched late at three times originally anticipated pricing.Mondozai - Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - link
Valve time.And not that I complain. The industry is slowly starting to re-learn the lessons of the past: if you rush stuff, games or not, the result tend to be pretty crappy. Cue BF4.
The biggest questions on SM's are still the same old ones: control input and Linux support for games. And given more time, these things will be better.
Margalus - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Linux support doesn't fit into the equation because Steam Machines run SteamOS, not windows and not linuxBobSwi - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
SteamOS is a Debian/Linux flavorhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SteamOS
syxbit - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
errrr.......... You do realize that SteamOS is Linux right?It's Debian 7 with some added/updated packages
Mondozai - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Margalus, where are you now? You're awfully quiet, boy :DMargalus - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
If SteamOS is Debian/Linux then my point is still valid, Linux support doesn't matter because it is what it is. Do you honestly believe that they are going to make a system that doesn't have Linux support if it is based on Linux?Guspaz - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
You've got it backwards. Mondozai is saying that not many games support Linux. Since SteamOS is just a Linux distro, that means not many games support SteamOS.Linux support in games is indeed critical to the success of steam machines...
Murloc - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link
Steam now (or will soon, I've seen it in the steam news) supports LAN streaming of games between computers logged in with the same user. Basically virtual desktop for the game. And while it currently supports only windows as host, it supports linux and mac os as clients.This means that as long as you have a PC in the house, a weak steambox on linux may still do what it needs to do to be a casual gaming platform, even if games don't support linux.
Of course the latency will probably not be acceptable for competitive multiplayer gamers (especially FPS), but it's fine for casual gamers.
After all, competitive players will not use that controller or play from the couch, and they're a minority.
Flunk - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
I'm not sure I see this being a big seller no matter when it launches.dagnamit - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
It won't be a big seller when it launches, but it will pick up when people are tired of the underpowered consoles and see what a $500 midrange PC can do. Native 4k gaming will be possible at around $500 in the next 2-3 years. That's the system seller. People need to justify that big 4k screen.inighthawki - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Native 4K in 2-3 years on a $500 PC? lol. Unless your plans include running 5 years old games, that's not gonna happen.dstarr3 - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
The problem I have is that I struggle to justify spending gaming PC money on a PC that only does games. I put a lot of money into my PC, sure, and a lot of that delivers a great gaming experience, but this PC is also a workstation for me. I put in all this horsepower for a wide range of tasks. Therefore, I could justify the cost. But I really can't see myself or anyone really investing so much money into a PC that they then just shove under their TV and only use for the single purpose of gaming.I think it just makes a lot more sense to run an HDMI cable out to the TV and play that way, or if home layout makes that difficult, building a small, quiet, $300-ish HTPC for streaming. Because, if you don't have a gaming-capable computer, why would you buy/build one and just stuff it under the TV instead of using it for everything, and if you do have one already, why would you spend so much on another when streaming will be perfectly acceptable and much cheaper?
There's just a lot better solutions to the problems that Steam Machines are being designed to solve. As much as I want PC gaming to be simpler and more foolproof like console gaming, I'm skeptical. Because Steam Machines don't solve any of the problems inherent in developing games for PC versus console.
hpglow - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Valve's streaming solution works very well. I conducted some tests between two wirelessly connected PCs and in most cases it worked nicely. I used wireless just so I could see worst case scenario on my network. The input lag was not noticeable (I perceived none). There was jerkyness in only one title and it was very minor and cleared up quickly. Color banding occurs during dark scenes. I think streaming will be the real home run assuming the user has a decent gaming rig somewhere in the home.I will root for Valve and hope the OS goes somewhere but I run Linux all day and they have some serious hurdles to make it consumer ready. I have a stack of wireless adapters that only work with windows. A couple I bought because reviews stated Linux support only to find out the vendor had switched to another chipset. Stuff like that and lack of software will be hard to overcome.
Impulses - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
I think streaming could be a real hit for people like myself and dstarr3, I would really rather just play most games with a kb and mouse at the same desk where I get other stuff done (photography post processing etc)... But I'll be all over streaming if I can buy a cheap box that allows me to stream games that are big screen friendly like console ports, party games, etc. Would never invest in a dedicated HTPC (my DVR, Chromecast, etc meet all my needs) but I'll happily jump on the streaming bandwagon.inighthawki - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
What games did you test? Obviously something like an FPS will have higher perception of latency than say, a point and click RPG :)I for example an incapable of playing any game with vsync enabled, which at a solid 60Hz typically adds a worst case of about 48ms of latency (3 queued frames ahead), but often less. I've heard that the average latency just from the streaming adds about 75ms of latency on a wired connection. For me this would be completely unplayable. TVs often also have (sometimes significantly) worse latency than a monitor, especially those for gaming.
I'd like to try the streaming myself, but at this point I cannot even imagine it being acceptable for me :(
nathanddrews - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
I say try it. Steam Streaming is out of beta, so anyone can use it now.Your total latency will come down to your input device(s), gaming PC, network, streaming PC, and its display. A lot can go wrong, but in my testing at home, nothing did. I tested on two gaming PCs (as the 1920x1200 sources) and streamed to five different PCs (mix of wired and wireless). In general, the wired connection always added about 20ms to the experience while wireless was a range of 35-55ms.
In total with all parts considered, it's probably gets as high as 75ms over wireless, but the connection itself does not add that much latency which surprised me greatly. You won't be happy if you expect twitch-perfect latency from a dedicated gaming machine, but for everything else, it's really damn good.
Impulses - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
What are the exact client requirements? I don't really have a spare laptop that's recent enough to just try it myself (old netbook and a Core Duo are the only laptops around here)... I'm wondering how cheap they can make the client boxes tho. For $200 or less I'd get one just to try it and see how it evolves.nathanddrews - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
My worst laptop is a Pentium T4400 with an NVIDIA GT 320M and is plays smoooooooth.coburn_c - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Oh no?!?! They delayed putting their freely available, largely unfinished linux distro on an overpriced pre-built? How will we survive?takeship - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Any bets on the delay stemming from the imminent most to MIR from X11 and Valve not wanting to be stuck supporting two display drivers for the next several years?eslu - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
More likely with X11 to Wayland i guess? Maybe related to AMD drivers?extide - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link
Debian won't be moving to MIR, they will be going to Wayland like everyone else should be. MIR is a joke.Torashin - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Read: We're waiting until Mantle is ported to Linux.Guspaz - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Most steam machines will be GPU limited, not CPU limited, so Mantle wouldn't really provide any improvement.andrewaggb - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Except more than half of the games supporting mantle are new ea games, which won't be on steam anyways. Waiting for Mantle is probably one of the hurdles though. From a price perspective, waiting for ddr4 amd cpu's, or something better from intel also makes sense from a low end machine standpoint.Only real problem I have is that this is further fragmenting the pc market which is already an afterthought for many people. Valve needs to provide something compelling. So good is makes the xbox one and ps4 and pc gaming look bad. With at least one or two exclusives that are 9/10 or better quality games.
Their controller is interesting. the game streaming is interesting. I don't think either is enough on it's own. If they had a VR headset ready to go, full multimedia support, a big games library, Half life 3, and sweet pricing, I'm still not sure it would be enough.
I'm currently playing the following games on/off. Battlefield 4, Titanfall, Hearthstone, Diablo 3. See the problem?
I'm looking forward to, Dragon Age, Destiny, Halo Next. My kids are waiting for PvZ Warfare on PC, otherwise they play minecraft and skyrim and lego lord of the rings.
So in all of that, steam has skyrim and lego games. Don't get me wrong, I have tonnes of games on steam, I love steam, but it's nowhere near being my only gaming service. The politics involved and the 'platform exclusives', 'store exclusives' etc are not going away unless something turns the whole market upside down. I don't think steam boxes are going to do that. At least not overnight.
Guspaz - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
What they probably need is a very cheap streaming-only steam machine (which they've talked about, but I don't think such a machine was amongst the initial ones they revealed). When streaming, SteamOS has access to your entire library of Windows games, so in its purest form such a box fills the role of bringing your whole Steam library into your living room.Impulses - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
That's what I'd buy. $200 or less and I don't even care if it isn't perfect out of the box... Any more and it better be, I can't be bothered to go build a machine just to test the streaming aspect. I imagine many will have spare laptops suitable for that but how many would bother?jwcalla - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link
They're going to be waiting awhile then because AMD has already squashed the idea of Mantle coming to Linux.PrimaFizik1520 - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
This has been a long time coming. I am excited for its release.PubFiction - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link
Did valve ever say the steam box would release in 2014? I never saw this does anyone have a link?Brett Howse - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link
http://store.steampowered.com/livingroom/SteamMach..."Choose the model right for you in 2014."