Assuming you're talking about Steam machines, they should actually be cheaper than anything you can build yourself. The manufacturer only needs to make a profit from the whole unit, not each part; can buy components in very large volumes (therefore getting a very good price); only one item is being shipped (to distributors and retailers as well as you)... a whole lot of things come together that can make them cheaper than a home-built desktop of similar performance. Plus, you save yourself an hour or two of work just assembling it (so excluding research), which I would count as a $20-$40 saving .

Choosing your own parts certainly has its advantages -I put together both my current and my previous desktop myself- but Steam Machines definitely have to potential to beat them on price. Perhaps not enough to cover purchasing Windows to install on one... but why would you do that?

I have already tried and failed. I cannot put together my own PC that matches the price and parts of the $499 priced 'Steam-machine' with a 4th-gen i3 and a GTX 760 and 8GB of RAM (maybe more). I think my estimated total, and that was with a not-so-sleek looking HTPC case, was still $100 over budget. They don't really seem to be overpriced at all.

Still, why buy a $500 steam machine when I can get practically the same experience in my livingroom for $100 less? On top of that, any competitive games I play I will run into the issue of a lot other people having more powerful systems giving them an advantage in that department, which I still dislike to this day. If I'm going to be competitively gaming, I need to be on the same playing field or have bigger guns.

For me, it's just a better investment to spend more on a rig and play at my desk. I'm still looking forward to more information on them and then comparing that to the rig I'm aiming it.

The Xbox one costs $500, so, contrary to what you are saying, the steambox is competitively priced.

The Steambox also has mod support right? That's something that's normally only available to PC players, giving it to console players would be a big selling point IMO.

If you're after competitive gaming, then you're out of the target demographics for (most?) Steam Machines . There's nothing stopping a company making one that's capable of it, of course, but I don't see it as the market Valve has in mind. You (or others) may still find it attractive for when you want to curl up on a sofa and just chill with a game, however.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/01/22/valve-open-up-in-home-streaming-to-non-steam-games/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=emp.

If they can get that working well with the majority of games (obviously including non-Steam games) then I could see sub-$200 Steam machines selling really well.

If there were one set up for playing BluRay as well, I could see it becoming a go-to device for media centres.

Yep, if they could make Blu-Ray, DVD, Netflix, Pandora, Spotify, Amazon, DLNA, Shoutcast, MythTV, Subsonic, etc. modules available that would be a hell of an HTPC platform.

Yeh....I don't think about the Xbox since it doesn't apply to me and I consider it the weaker of the two.

It's already been pointed out to you that it's cheaper than the equivalent PC that you could build yourself (and once you have a stable framerate over 40 fps, there's no advantage of beefier hardware and network latency is a much bigger problem for competitive play and one you have less control over).

It's been now pointed out to you that it's in-par with current-gen console prices.

Yet you still claim it's not competitively priced.

Am I missing something?

Mod support would be nice, but most console gamers do not care or still use mods anyways without support.

Maybe the difference between 400 and 500 dollars?

It would be unfortunate if a mere one hundred dollars impacted my buying decisions that much. I understand that it has to be the case for a good percent of the population though.

And guess what? A Steam machine can be released for $400 if someone decides to. No one has yet, but that doesn't mean no one will in the future.

Your price argument is not valid. As-is there are models the same price as consoles and cheaper than you can build a PC for yourself. A model as cheap as the PS4 is definitely within the realm of real possibilities in the future, just hasn't been done yet.

Now if you want to go back to your argument that had actual meat: the number of games, and in particular the number of exclusives, that was a subject that's a real valuable critique of the Steam Machine and brings something to the table, unlike price on a platform that has multiple models and in a competitive, open market (unlike the PS4 and XB1 which have their price set by a single company)

Its not just the selling price though, its the complete package. What is that $500 Cyberpower going to offer me over a $400 PS4? It's simply the better deal. On top of not being a big fan of Steam (but I do use it), it's got to offer up way more for the buck to get people to convert. And yes, a good portion of the population, that $100 does matter. For me a little bit, not because I don't have it but more so that I'm a money-pinching type A personality type of guy.

Seriously, price has never been my single point. Go back and check. Maybe on a post that was a focal point, but its never been my entire stance. Ever. Thanks.

Which I acknowledged in my post.

The reason people are arguing with you on the price point is because it's a non-issue, as has now been pointed out to you numerous times by multiple people. Even ignoring all the facts about it having models the same price as a current-gen console or being cheaper than building it yourself options, there's the fact that it's a lot like complaining about Android because it's too expensive. It's fine to complain about the latest flagship Samsung Android phone as too expensive (let's pretend the market agrees that Samsung phones are too expensive for a moment), but that doesn't make Android as a whole too expensive, because there are plenty of cheaper Android devices out there than the flagship device. Likewise with SteamOS and Steam Machines. It's fine to complain about a single device being too expensive, but to scoff off Steam Machines as a whole because they're too expensive? It makes no sense because a single device isn't reflective of the platform and even further, the platform itself is free of charge (just like Android).

Hence why I said your other argument is a better one and the one you should go back to. It has real merit and is a valid point, unlike the price point.

You lost me with the phones. I love my console and PC, but when its comes to phones...the smart ones easily outwit me. (Mostly because I don't care...I would never game on one)

It is an issue though for some, and just another small one with a bunch of other small ones that make me perplexed a bit with strategy. Imagine being strictly a console gamer. You have a choice...two machines, 1 is $500 and the other is $400. Both offer similar experience to the point where the untrained eye won't notice. I'm willing to bet most people take option B there. Its a small issue but it is there. Of course its not that simple either, but it shows where there is going to be yet another group that would not cross over to the Box.

Further more, the console group is going to be looking at the competitive priced machines, not the higher end types. That's why I point out the comparasion between a $400 and $500 device. It has nothing to do with the array, just the targetted area.

So... could you explain what makes the PS4 "the better deal"? I am assuming you're talking about features, not the price thing that you're taking around in circles.

The problem with this argument is that the steam machine doesn't cost $500. There are a few steam machines that cost $500, but there is nothing to stop a company from releasing a $400 steam machine if they see a market for one.

I've never been talking about higher end ones. I've been talking about how the Steam Machine is an open platform and therefore can be released at any price point. Just like Windows PCs are released at numerous price points (but SteamOS is free unlike Windows -- allowing manufacturers to put in beefier hardware). If the market says "We want a $400 steam machine" Guess what's going to happen? Someone somewhere is going to make a steam machine for $400. Conversely, if the market says "We're fine with paying $500 for the steam machine" (just like XB1 fans are perfectly fine paying $500 for the XB1) then the currently priced steam machines will do fine.

This is basic economics and what happens when you're dealing with a competitive, open market. It's nothing like the console prices you've been used to. The Steam Machine's price can quite literally change overnight if someone sees a viable business opportunity to make a buck.

There's one that's $500 and noticeably more powerful than the PS4. I think Cyberpower makes it. It has a GTX 760 I seem to remember.

That one is pretty competitive with consoles on price/performance. Same price as Xbox One for mod support & better hardware than PS4 without paid online? That could sell.

PS4 is a worse experience than the $500 Steambox. GTX 760 is much better than the PS4 GPU and PS4 won't support mods. Games will run and play better on the Steam machine. You also get to play FPS with a mouse, while PS4 forces controller use on everyone. It's a legitimate $100 difference, not a rip-off like $100 more for the 30-40% less powerful Xbox One .

Agh double post ..

How about being able to play games you already own for the PC?

Honestly I don't see SteamOS converting a lot of console players, but I do see it making a lot of multi-platform gamers re-think their plans to buy another console.

Well, just rebuilt my non-steam-machine. If I were ever to buy a Steam Machine this would have been the time.

As usual I made no effort to be 'cutting edge'. In fact I was perfectly happy with my very far out of date machine until it ate the motherboard, so I targeted a a new to me machine that is way stronger than I had, but cheap. Motherboard, processor, and memory-$275. I replaced my vid card not too long ago for $50 so didn't get a new one.

I'm well under the cost of a new generation console or Steam Machine, can play all my old games which 'max out' as far as hardware requirements with Skyrim I guess. I never felt constrained with my old machine so I'm sure I won't feel limited now. I'm not sure, but I think the attraction of brand new consoles and cutting edge gaming rigs must be for multi-player gaming...or maybe just a reflection of 'bigger house, fancier car' syndrome. I've hardly ever picked up a game and looked at system requirements and thought 'I can't play this', and I've never been anywhere near the cutting edge.