The Big Bad Console Thread - Sway your Station with an Xboner !

Tuco_sl said:

I'm pretty sure he's saying that in 2 years we're going to have games that look like BF4 and assassin's creed4. I think he's totally wrong but I'm at a loss for finding games that were released with the PS3/xbox360's release that had a newer version released 2 years later that were hugely better.

Click to expand...

Ok. From that standpoint then using Call of Duty 3 as an example (PS3 launch title) then we just need to find an CoD or FPS title that looks better then CoD3 that was released in 2008.

Snip newpost

Realistically, his argument doesn't make much sense.

He's of the impression that graphics engines stay exactly the same until suddenly a new engine comes out.

Like they don't do cumulative updates to the engine to make it look better via a different revision level or whatnot.
It ALWAYS looks the same until the next engine comes out which ALWAYS looks the same until that one becomes obsolete as well.

It's just nonsense.

Tuco_sl said:

I'm pretty sure he's saying that in 2 years we're going to have games that look like BF4 and assassin's creed4. I think he's totally wrong but I'm at a loss for finding games that were released with the PS3/xbox360's release that had a newer version released 2 years later that were hugely better.

Click to expand...

I'm sure we will have games that only look like that in 2 years. We'll also have games that look way the fuck better and some that look worse, because developers move and iterate at varying paces and not everyone is the same. We'll also have games 6-12 months from now that blow away games like BF4 and AC4 like The Witcher 3 and The Order 1886.

The Evolution of Graphics: Call of Duty
The Evolution of Graphics: Call of Duty Edition - YouTube

Call of Duty 3, November 6, 2007 (PS3 Launch)
Call of Duty 4: MW, November 7, 2007
Call of Duty 4: MW 2, February 11, 2009

Additional dates hereCall of Duty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should be enough there to settle this.

Selix_sl said:

Cor steambox may in the longterm become a factor but in the short term (next few years) I would feel safe saying it will be a non-factor. Even with 65 million users why would they feel any incentive to switch from their current PC setups to Steambox? Why buy another box at all since you already have a PC? Will people buy it because it exists? Sure. Will they buy it in the numbers needed to compete with consoles? Not without a lot of incentive. (BybuyI mean a separate box just for SteamOS and controller support)

Click to expand...

We can only speculate for now. There's still too many unknowns in the Steam Machine equation. According to this article, we should know more in January --We play with the Steam Machine, Valve's game console of the future | The Verge

What's next
After a short demo, I got an opportunity to ask my burning questions about where all of this is going.

First, circle January on your calendar. That's when the other shoe will drop; Valve's hardware and software partners will reveal the actual Steam Machines that will ship to consumers, and the games that will come to the Linux platform, at the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show.

There will be a number of different Steam Machine boxes on sale in 2014, and Valve expects them to arrive mid-year. Some of those boxes will be far smaller and / or cheaper than Valve's own prototype unit. "You can get far smaller, and that's what many OEMs are doing. I think it's safe to say less than a quarter of the size," the team told me.

Of course, when they get to that size, they won't be using full-size graphics cards any more. Intel's integrated graphics are a possibility there: "We're super interested in Iris Pro." When I ask whether Intel or AMD might make special chips to bring down the price of truly powerful integrated graphics, the room goes quiet for a moment. "We don't have an answer that we can give you before January," the team answers.

Click to expand...

Edit - I think you've gotten the wrong idea about Steam Machines, by the way. They're not designed to replace PCs, they're designed to be an alternative to PCs for people who find PC gaming intimidating (which is a lot of people!). There's also lazy people like me who wished their PCs were more console-like. As in, turn on and play. SteamOS and Steam Machines might be able to deliver on that.

The most important part of his argument is he admitted to owning an Atari jaguar. I have one too man And you made me feel good about coming out. The numpad is terrible. But I love avp

Cor you turn your PC off?
The scariest thing about pc gaming I have heard of from non pc gamers is all of the controls which is generally why PC gamers love it. That and game modability.

Cor_sl said:

Well, consider this.

Click to expand...

I guess I should revise that to say "Steam Boxes will have no *immediate* significant impact on the market". They are not something that is going to make some blatant, massive splash that totally disrupts ecosystems with their release. Will they have a significant subtle long-term impact? Maybe. But we're not going to all be replacing everything we own with Steam Boxes in 2-3 years let alone next year.

I turn mine off every night. Then turn it on again when I get home from work and leave it that way until I go to bed again.

Newer system running a Samsung 840 Pro so it boots the OS (Win 7 Pro) in around 14 seconds from the time I press the power button.

I like shutting it off every night.

Selix_sl said:

Cor you turn your PC off?

Click to expand...

I only use my PC for gaming nowadays. I don't even have any programs installed on my Windows install other than Mumble, Steam, and Origin, iirc. Most of my browsing is done on my Nexus 7/iPad and most of my work is done on my laptop.

So, yeah, I turn it off whenever I'm not using it!

Someone needs to introduce you to the joys of multi media servers and torrenting. Still I think turning your pc off saves you like 5 cents a month.

I am just not following the difference between a steam box that costs god knows what with a Nvidia GTX or Titan 16 gigs of ram and a 1 TB SSD and a PC with those spec and a steam controller that you will not be stuck using Steam OS, Linux and can be used for other shit as well.

It would have to be a significant price difference to lock yourself into what Steam is trying to get people to go for and I dont think they can offer such a huge discount over building a PC. Not to mention with so many manufacturers of different steam boxes and different processors / vid cards etc its going to be essentially like building a normal computer. So basically everyone is getting super excited over a custom built computer. Okay then.

Can't imagine Sony or MS will care even a smidgen, they still have their exclusives and people already know their brands and it is simple to buy. Little Timmy wants a PS4 for Christmas well thats easy to figure out. System + game. Oh Timmy wants a Steambox....which one? which manufacturer? do you have to update drivers and will that be simple? Will the system you buy this year be pointless next year? How on earth does this make a lick of sense other then a niche market?

Selix_sl said:

Someone needs to introduce you to the joys of multi media servers and torrenting. Still I think turning your pc off saves you like 5 cents a month.

Click to expand...

Ahh, I have a separate HTPC with over 6tb of content and a 360gb seedbox. I know all about that stuff, trust me.

I'm just lazy when it comes to technology nowadays. I want stuff to work without me having to fiddle around with settings and whatnot. While PC gaming is easier and more streamlined now than it ever has been before, it's not quite there yet. I'm hoping SteamOS will make PCs truly appliance-like.

Juvarisx_sl said:

I am just not following the difference between a steam box that costs god knows what with a Nvidia GTX or Titan 16 gigs of ram and a 1 TB SSD and a PC with those spec and a steam controller that you will not be stuck using Steam OS, Linux and can be used for other shit as well.

It would have to be a significant price difference to lock yourself into what Steam is trying to get people to go for and I dont think they can offer such a huge discount over building a PC. Not to mention with so many manufacturers of different steam boxes and different processors / vid cards etc its going to be essentially like building a normal computer. So basically everyone is getting super excited over a custom built computer. Okay then.

Click to expand...

You can install Windows or Linux or whatever onto a Steam Machine. You're not restricted to SteamOS. Hell, you'll be able to install Origin or U-Play or whatever onto SteamOS too, assuming there is a Linux client, of course.

Think of it this way: Steam Machines are prebuilt PCs designed for gaming. They come pre-configured out of the box to run SteamOS, an operating system designed specifically for gaming. They're designed to make PCs function more like consoles - that's all.

So.... the Steam machine is competing with the Ouya basically.

And that is exactly the problem, although they want to dub this as the Steam console it most certainly is not.
It is just a delivery device for the current steam with a controller that will always be inferior to the mouse/kb.

Currently if you want to play your steam collection on your TV you hook up your computer to it, and are limited to pretty much the 360 controller. Cause who the fuck is going to bother with a mouse/kb on your couch.
Defeats the point

For Steam to be a real console they would have to make ONE machine that will 100% lose them money that they will have to make up somewhere else. It's not something that company can even handle at this point.

Anyone can make a Steam Box, just has to meet there specs.

No its an Alienware with a controller. I am failing to see a difference.

Remind us again the launch line up of the Jaguar?