Submitted by Valve officially showed off the 13 official Steam Machines during its brief CES press event this evening, but it was in the aftermath where we got a closer look at the devices. Below, Reviews Editor Lee Hutchinson snapped photos of all the Steam Machine variants in their glorious array of shapes and sizes.
They start at $499, and come in all shapes and sizes.
I’m a fan of the iBuyPower box.
It looks the best in my eyes.
The price and specs of these machines is underwhelming to say the least. I firmly support this, competition is great but at those prices it’s tough to justify.
Edited 2014-01-07 20:30 UTC
Nobody starts by underselling. The early adopters go high end. This thing won’t be commodity priced until this next holiday season at the earliest.
What’s hard to justify? The $499 machine from ibuypower is a good deal, and cyberpowerpc also has a $499 offering. Both Xbox one competitive. The small Gigabyte machine with integrated graphics (photographed with iris pro sticker) seems to be a lower spec streaming and media box.
Everything else there either does not have the price and specs released or clearly aimed at enthusiasts, not average consumers.
However, I think I remember reading that, although this box would play all current games, it wouldn’t play all of them at high settings, which is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit that console gamers would like to avoid. These Steam Machines seem little more than non-DYI PCs for the living room, so other than not having to build one yourself, I’m not sure what problem they are trying to solve, other than Valve not liking Windows 8.
They claimed they could run the current steam for linux catalog at 1080p and 60fps (which would include Metro Last Light, one of the most graphically intensive games today). Far more powerful graphical capabilities then the PS4.
As for not being run at high settings, that’s a shoddy comparison. Console’s don’t have settings. Everyone gets the same, and they are usually equivalent to being low settings due to hardware limitations, especially as time into the console generation goes on. Compare skyrim on PC to last gen consoles. Even at low the PC version as superior graphics. But with PC hardware, if you can not handle the game on higher settings you can run at low, or you can upgrade parts your machine so it can. On consoles if the hardware cannot handle the game at high, everyone is going to get low, and there is no way to get a better experience other then the game being released on a platform that is able to meet it’s demands; and they consumer switching to that new platform.
On the xbox one, it couldn’t handle the newest Call of Duty at 1080p, so it had to run at 720p and upscaled to 1080p. On the PS4 Battlefield 4 ran at 900p upscaled to 1080. These are launch titles, how will it be 2 years from now? Yes you can talk about optimization and all that, but this generation is mid range PC hardware from 2012. It’s not like game developers haven’t optimized for x86 and AMD gpus before.
Which is precisely why I buy consoles, so I don’t have to worry about that shit. I buy one a few months after launch, and I’m good for 5-6 years. Sure, there are certain trade-offs for this convenience, but really… I’m good with that.
Steam Machines don’t appear to be nothing more than off-the-shelf gaming PCs, running a niche desktop OS, that might actually be harder to upgrade than one I build myself. So again, why exactly would I want one?
So, you’re saying you’re too lazy to click “Options”, then “Graphics” then select a lower graphic mode? You only have to do it once… and you get a much better gaming experience as a result.
Yeah, if it were only that easy. I spend enough time having to fight with shitty display driver and fan issues on my current card (GeForce 460), and I don’t even play games on it. It seems that AMD nor nVidia know how to make a stable driver anymore.
From now on, I think I’m just going to go with integrated graphics, as I’ve never had any issues with those, and they usually don’t require 200MB drivers just to operate.
And you’re seriously thinking you will have to fiddle with graphics settings on a Steam Machine?
They will most certainly autoconfigure the games graphics settings to run the best on that machine.
Hell, even on regular PC it’s getting more and more automatic, as both game developers and nVidia are developing tools to detect the optimum settings.
If you are happy with playing on a lower quality graphics level on your console of choice, why wouldn’t you be happy with the same on a Steam Machine?
Keep in mind that if you happen to want to replace your Steam Machine with a better one, or upgrade the one you have, your existing game will then run on a higher quality graphics level, automagically.
You cannot accomplish the same on any other console.
You cannot upgrade your existing console, even if you wanted and if you buy the next generation console, your existing game won’t run at all on that machine.
How is that in any way, shape or form better?
First, you need understand that a “Steam Machine” is nothing more than a pre-built pc with Steam OS installed on it instead of Windows. There’s absolutely nothing special about a “Steam Machine”.
Next, pc’s with Steam OS installed are not consoles, they are pc’s with Steam OS installed.
Also, console gamers don’t wish their consoles were more like pc’s. They don’t want to worry about swapping out pc components and dealing with varying degrees of game quality depending on what components you’re using.
What Valve is trying to accomplish is not getting into the console gaming market, it’s trying to convert Windows gaming into Linux gaming. Valve basically want’s to kick Microsoft/Windows in the balls and ride off into the sunset with its girlfriend.
As a pc gamer, installing Steam OS offers me nothing I don’t already have with Windows. As a console gamer, installing Steam OS doesn’t get me the blockbusters & exclusive titles I enjoy. So, for me personally, there’s zero incentive to use Steam OS either on my existing pc or by purchasing another pc and putting it on that. I don’t anticipate that’s going to change unless Steam OS manages to get must-have exclusives. For that I’m not holding my breath. I don’t claim to know what the future holds for Steam OS, BUT I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it/Linux gaming to become the new hotness.
Exactly, just like the Xbox One and PS4..
They are both X86 machines with another OS preinstalled.
And the first Xbox vas LITERALLY _just_ a regular PC with another operating system installed that was itself a NT-based system. So not much different from Windows at all.
Todays consoles are not consoles, they are pc’s with another OS installed.
They don’t _have_ to. They can do exactly like on regular consoles and just buy one until the next generation and then swap it out for the next one.
They don’t have to worry about varying degrees of game quality if they buy one at a similar price range as regular consoles. The machines in that price range can already handle _every_ game available in full 1080p, 60Hz without any issues.
That’s the whole point of making a blueprint for these things. They exist so that people can go to the store, pick one up and _know_ it will work with every game currently available.
Otherwise, there would have been _zero_ need for Steam Machines blueprints.
Once games evolve beyond the capability of the current gen, they will upgrade the blueprints to version 2.0 and new boxes that meet those criteria will be available.
_Just like_ consoles.
The difference is that you are not _locked_ when it comes to the hardware. If you _want_ to upgrade parts, you _can_ but you don’t _have to_.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
And why is that seen as a _negative_?
Edited 2014-01-09 19:55 UTC
That’s an assumption. We can discuss again after people have been running Steam OS for a year. Then we can gauge how well the software & hardware has held up.
You sound like you still understand that Valve has not developed a new device. The blueprint for pcs was created long ago and Valve had nothing to do with it. There is literally no difference between Windows gaming and “Steam Machine” AKA Steam OS AKA Linux gaming other than the fact that with Windows you have tons more games to choose from.
What blueprints? Or did you actually mean to say `minimum Steam OS requirements`, just as you would find `minimum Windows OS requirements`?
That’s been the case since the pc market first took off. There is absolutely nothing new to see here. This is all old news.
You need to forget thinking pc gaming magically just turned into console gaming because Valves marketing fluff wants you to think something new is going on. This is really about trying to herd pc gamers away from Windows and towards Linux. That’s the bottom line. If Valve has any shot at succeeding beyond Linux enthusiasts or Microsoft haters, it will only be after a long & painful uphill climb. At this point there’s no reason for anyone to install Steam OS over their existing Windows box, and no good reason to buy a pc with Steam OS over an Xbox or Playstation. The only exceptions would be some morality about who you support, or Steam OS offering must-have exclusives that justify going that route. Most people don’t care about the former, and whether the latter ever becomes trues has yet to be seen.
*sigh*, I did say every game “available”, didn’t I?
These things will allow games to continually evolve, unlike regular consoles where the games only evolve (technology wise) once every ten years.
Some like that, but I never liked the fact that regular consoles hold back technology evolution.
I’m hoping this will have a hand in solving that problem. I might, it might not, but I’m not gonna diss their attempt before we know for sure how it turns out.
And you still don’t understand that there is no difference between that and regular consoles either.
THEY ARE ALL PC’S!
The “blueprints” in this case, are NOT for how to build regular PC’s, but for a certification process, so that people can buy a certified machine and know that it will work.
Non-technical people have no idea if the run-of-the-mill PC down the store will work for their games.
With a Steam certified machine, they will know.
How about you actually read a bit. Go check out what they have said themselves.
They said that they created blueprints for “good, better and best” steam machines.
A certification process: Build a machine with these requirements and you may slap a “better” sticker on it. And so on.
It’s a simple certification!
What do you not get about that?
That’s been the case since the pc market first took off. There is absolutely nothing new to see here. This is all old news. [/q]
Just like consoles. How do you not get that?
The ONLY difference between regular consoles and this is that regular consoles stay the same for 10 years before evolving, while this will allow a little more rapid evolving. How is that in any way shape or form bad?
If you don’t want your technology to evolve faster than every 10 years, keep buying Xboxes. No problem.
Uh, I’ve never claimed that.
And Valve has NOT tried to market this as pc gaming magically turned into console gaming.
In fact, they market this as a tool for their existing customers who want to play their existing Steam games on their TV, from their sofa.
Sure, they absolutely want an exit from the stronghold Microsoft has with Windows. And what’s wrong with that?
If Microsoft succeeds with their App Store, they will effectively start herding people away from Steam, which will hurt Valve economically, so ofcourse they need a way out. Linux was the ONLY realistic choice, as the only other alternative was MacOS, and there Apple already has an even tighter grip of the ecosystem.
I don’t care what operating system they decide to use for their products. Neither should you.
Who cares what operating system Sony uses on the Playstation?
This was never part of the discussion, so why bring it up?
You claim the machines are absolute regular ordinary PC’s with just another operating system installed.
That’s the exact same thing with consoles. They all even contain the same kind of hardware these days.
x86 CPU with a GPU from AMD or nVidia.
The only really difference between them all (including xbox and playstation) are the operating systems.
The first Xbox was a regular old PC with a slightly modified NT based operating system. Just another flavor of Windows. Just a PC.
The new Xbox still has a NT based operating system.
Just another PC.
There simply is no difference, technologically speaking. They are _all_ regular PC’s with different operating systems.
It’s like you wanna throw every last piece of shit you can find at the wall and see what sticks. Why?
Why are you so hell bent on dissing what they are attempting to acheive?
Maybe, but why kick them in the process?
You are contributing to that uphill climb, instead of helping.
They are not asking anyone to. They are considering this a complement to the existing PC. For use in the living room.
Unless you own a shit-ton of Steam games, that is.
Why buy an Xbox instead of a Playstation?
Why buy a Playstation instead of an Xbox?
It’s the same argument.
Just like Xbox vs Playstation.
Your point?
Just like Xbox vs Playstation.
Again, what’s your point?
You seem to believe that these will actually be WORSE than an Xbox or Playstation, when in reality they are more likely gonna give you BETTER graphics and MORE available games for the same money.
Crazy huh?
Xbox One and Playstation 4 have very few games available at the moment, while the Steam Machines, even before they have been released, already have over 300 games available, all of them fully playable at 1080p, 60Hz, while both Xbox One and PS4 struggle to do the same with their existing games.
Both of them have upscaled some games from lower resolutions, to be able to handle them. And that’s right after the consoles have been released.
Does not bode well for future game engine technology.
It will be CryEngine 2->3 all over again. They had to nerf their engine so that the consoles could handle it, actually removing features and lowering the graphics quality.
Yea, that’s awesome… not.
That problem was already solved ages ago with the birth of 3d gaming on the pc. And, consoles don’t drive technology therefore it’s not possible for them to hold it back.
By all means, please try to find a quote where I said consoles aren’t pc’s. In no way does differentiating between pc gaming and console gaming mean or imply there’s any confusion regarding what the hardware is.
You clearly missed the point. Oh well, no biggie.
Not get what? What are you even going on about? “Regular consoles and this”? “This will allow a little more rapid evolving”? You still don’t understand that you’re just trying to compare a pc and a game console? And I haven’t noticed anyone suggest that the ability to upgrade components in a pc is a bad thing. Where are you getting this nonsense from?!
Who said anything is wrong with it?
The Microsoft App Store doesn’t threaten to `herd people away from Steam`, it threatens to take a portion of their revenue BUT only IF certain things fall into place, which at this point looks unlikely. Not that it isn’t wise to develop a plan B just in case.
I disagree. Valve could have developed their own OS from the ground up that would truly be built for gaming, rather than put bandaids on everything wrong with Linux (gaming). Linux was the EASIER and CHEAPER choice, but not the “ONLY” one.
I never said I cared what OS Valve bases Steam OS on. But, you’re wrong that it’s not part of the discussion. It’s a central point because it’s the very reason for Valve’s actions. By creating the Steam OS distro, Valve is trying to shift Windows gaming over to Linux. And you think that isn’t a part of the discussion? ….wow
It’s common knowledge. Valve owns words are `anyone can create a Steam Machine with off-the-shelf parts`.
No, it’s not the exact same thing with consoles. The system design is not the same, and neither are the parts used. If you think you can build a PS4 or Xbox One with a quick trip to your local computer store, you’re wrong.
Wrong. As I just said, consoles use a more integrated design and modified versions of CPU’s and GPU’s that aren’t available off-the-shelf. The are two significant differences beyond simply running different OSes.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. How exactly does pointing out facts equate to throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks? And how do you interpret it as “dissing what they are attempting to achieve”? At no point have I said anything negative about Valve’s pursuit to make Linux gaming tangible competition. So far they haven’t done anything new, anything impressive, and given me as a pc & console gamer any reason to bother with Steam OS. Would you prefer I lie or pretend otherwise? I’ve already explained what it would take for Valve and Steam OS to win me over so obviously the door is open. But, I’m not going to get a hard-on when there’s nothing to get a hard-on for.
In what way do you think I’m kicking them or making their uphill climb even harder? Because I won’t dump Windows and console gaming in favor of Steam OS without good reason? It’s their job to win me over, not my job to blindly follow.
If you own a shit-ton of Steam games, you already own a pc and thus likely wouldn’t be prompted to buy another one just to install Steam OS when it gives you no advantage at this point.
Do you truthfully not understand the statement?
Wrong. Xbox & PS already have several established blockbusters/exclusives. Steam, not so much. They’re going to need more than Half-Life and Portal to become any real competition.
Yes, it’s crazy that you say that because at no point did I ever say anything like that. Not even remotely close to it.
Xbox One and PS4 has the advantage of having a variety of juggernaut titles. Of those 300 steam games, how many can you say that about?
As is always the case at launch. Once the engines get fine-tuned and people learn these systems, you’ll see vast improvement. As is always the case.
Not so… http://www.osnews.com/permalink?580416
I don’t see the problem with different quality settings for different people.
Anyway, from Valves perspective I guess the problem they try to solve is remaining relevant in a world where each OS store have its own application store.
Valve is partly their own games and partly (arguable a bigger part by now?) Steam. Benefit of Steam is downloads locked to your account (and a communication platform together with that), however Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, .. have the same and could easily become the standard sellers of software on their own platforms.
Valve want to keep selling games.
Now from a user perspective the advantage I can see is for the people who don’t want a beefy PC sitting around in their apartment and they may not care much for regular PC tasks either now when they have their tablet and smartphone. The Steam machines offer them a way to get a PC in a less common form-factor and hide it away beside or behind their TV.
I don’t get why one would say get the Webhallen option though then you can just build that yourself or change it in any way you want. There’s totally nothing special about that configuration. On the other hand some other fellow Swede told me they had been part of some GTX 680 launch and over at Dreamhack (also in Sweden, worlds biggest computer gamer LAN) if I remember correctly G-sync was shown at the Komplett both and Komplett and Webhallen have the same owner. Some marketing for them at least.
Why the user would be interested in Linux I have no freaking clue about but from Valves perspective I think it’s very easy to see why they want to do it.
Also more gamepads in the hands of PC gamers can likely strengthen the PC gaming market a little / make it more compatible with more titles. And I suppose the Steam machines will strengthen it somewhat too.
A “Steam Machine” is a regular pc. People really need to understand the term “Steam Machine” doesn’t describe a new product, it’s basically just marketing fluff.
Small and/or less common form-factor pc cases have been available for years. Most of my htpcs are hardly bigger than a Nintendo Wii, if at all. The most recent is probably 3 years old.
There is absolutely nothing new to see here. Everything about a “Steam Machine” is old news with the exception of the OS. It’s funny when Valve says “A powerful new category of living-room hardware is on the horizon”, but then turns around and explains how you can build a Steam Machine yourself completely out of off-the-shelf parts.
I know perfectly well that the term “Steam Machine” does not automatically equal something new.
However, I get the impression that Alienware are _not_ going to just use off the shelf parts, and are actually gonna make a custom case and some custom components, in order to get the size down enough to be smaller than current consoles and also look good.
I’m not sure how it will turn out, as I haven’t seen a finished product. So I’m holding judgment for now.
I was hoping, however, that Valve would have built and massproduced one themselves aswell, as they originally stated they would do. But that doesn’t seem to be happening.
However, implying that a Steam Machine would never be anything new, is wrong.
They _can_ be built with off the shelf parts, and that’s a good thing (keep it standardized), but they don’t have to be.
That’s what I mean when I say consoles are the same as PC’s. Technologically, there is very little separating them. But since they cannot be built using off the shelf parts, which I have never ever said or implied, that makes them worse in my opinion. You’re stuck with what is offered on the table and cannot do anything about it until they decide to sell the next generation.
It has it’s advantages ofcourse, but technologically it’s a standstill for 7-8 years. That’s not something I consider a good thing.
IF Valve plays their cards right, and that’s a big if (I’m still holding judgment), they can change that. But they need to tighten the requirements a bit, so that there is a clearer path for developers to follow.
Maybe they will, maybe they already have clear paths for developers, I don’t know. But I’m not gonna bash them before we see how it all turns out.
They have managed to get several big developers on board and they claim many more big developers are on board aswell, so they must be doing something right.
And this _is_ something new.
This is the _first_ time big developers actually give a damn about other PC platforms than Windows (and Mac to a degree).
They have also gotten Intel, AMD and nVidia to dramatically (atleast in Intels and AMD’s case) improve lacking graphics drivers on said platform.
Without this push from Valve, none of that would have happened. So it _is_ something new and to some degree has already been a success, whether the Steam Machines win or fail.
Edited 2014-01-11 16:43 UTC
Well, it depends.
The steam box will most likely always be able to play old games you’ve purchased, as long as Valve is in business.
That’s less likely for any of the traditional consoles. Some you’d need to repurchase them.
Also, at its core its a PC and these are the standard prices for desktop class machines of these specs. So, if you were going to buy a pc to play steam on, these are perfect for the job and right on the price.
I highly doubt this. These are still closed source proprietary apps for the most part, and eventually you will see games relying on libraries that are no longer available or compatible. I think people are a bit spoiled by Windows backwards compatibility with games, because Linux does not have the same track record. If you don’t believe me, feel free to track down one of the old Loki Software ports to Linux like Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and let me know how much work it takes to get it working, because it will not be easy.
The problem is they aren’t trying to compete in the PC market, they are competing in the console market. Sony and Microsoft build their consoles to do very specific tasks, and they take a loss on every console sold because they make it up in the licensing fees for the games. Unless Valve heavily supplements these manufacturers I just don’t see how they can compete.
While not all games that you purchased runs on Linux (out of my 400 games in my Steam collection, only 100 of them run on Linux), you’re still entitled to them. At the beginning of Steam for Linux Beta only handful of my games run, so it’s a reasonable assumption that the compatibility will rise.
Secondly, you’re still free to install Windows, and the same UI (Steam) will run on top of it as it is on SteamOS, and you get all your games.
So, all in all, I think it’s a fair deal. Some titles probably won’t run out of the box, but compared to the situation when buying a new console (like PS4) and having no previously purchased games run at all (even PSN games(!)) I think it’s a solid improvement.
I’ll get one.
The PS4/XBO are a better value for the living room.
As prime target for Steam Machines, I got rid of my TV long ago. And I don’t need a second PC.
Battlestations > consoles
I don’t know I was looking at making a similar system for the living room anyway to run XBMC, and that has better living room features than the PS4.
The prices are a bit high, but I was expecting $400 and worse hardware, so it is not that off. $500 for internet TV, all my Linux games and cool indie games, and perhaps streaming from a bigger Windows game PC if I ever bother to upgrade the one I have and it works nicely.
(and at $500 it will still outperform my current old gaming PC).
Edited 2014-01-08 19:02 UTC
I think the Gigabyte one and some other one for $499 which had a slower A10 and a R9 270(X?) was the most interesting ones.
The R9 270X still got higher floating point performance than the PS4. The PS4 and Xbox One may still come with the movement detection kits though?
The new Kaveri I suppose will deliver about current-gen performance at least as far as within their hardware goes. If that’s true for the same game titles on both platforms I don’t know.
I don’t know whatever Valve is interested in getting Steam on Android but I would be if I was them. The new Nvidia Tegra K1 could run Serious Sam 3 with all the PC features on whereas the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions can’t. So that’s pretty powerful too. And tiny!
Way slower than a GTX 780 Ti, even more so 2-4 of them .. but powerful enough for many games for people who are happy to just get a whole bunch of games.
In the case of Windows games since one get lots of old games available even on a limited chip rather than close to nothing it’s not too bad.
Edited 2014-01-09 10:59 UTC
Wait until you have bios issues and they tell you because of certain chipset, blah, blah, linux users can GAGF!