Oh, I have no doubt about that. I'm the one who argues for just getting a laptop instead of a console, remember?

I was commenting more on the basic value of the article linked. There are plenty of 'sources' on the internet that take full advantage of headlining for fun and profit, so when their headline is directly contradicted by the attached article I immediately think 'paid'...I'm cynical that way.

Oh, come on, only about 80% of them do that...

and I thought I was cynical...I'd have said 75%.

i'm not sure about the Steam machines, the prices seem a bit high, won't convert console gamers at those prices and PC gamers would rather spend that on upgrades, if you could just buy the case and stick your old parts in then i can see a use, i don't think they will take off imo

The fact that response seems lukewarm at best on this forum makes me very inclined to agree.

Bethesda is very high on the list for 'modding matters', possibly number one on that list. If there is any forum where a console gamer would see benefit to switching to PC of some sort I would think this is the place. Think about console players who primarily play other games that don't have mods, even for the PC versions. How do you sell those people on a Steam Machine that is about the same price and works just about as well? Other than modding what's the big advantage that makes a comfortable XBox 360 player not just stick with what they know and get an XBox One?

The other game forums I hang out on are even less receptive, but for another reason. They are forums for games that do not have console versions and are not compatible with controllers. Finding anyone there who has given so much as a stray thought to Steam Machines is just about impossible.

Trying to install Windows Media Center Edition from scratch is a month of my life I will never get back.........

Agreed, i just don't see who a Steam machine will appeal to, i've always been a PC gamer and i simply don't want one, if i was wanting a console, well there are already cheaper options.

I actually might buy a console. Now that there is a 'new generation' the 'old generation' should be so cheap that even if I only use it for an occasional Madden tournament with my sons I won't consider it a waste.

Madden being the only game I can think of that ever makes me think of advantages for consoles. Multiple players with equal access controllers. Couch seating for multiple players and spectators. Is there anything else?

I can see the draw to the Steam controller if it works well. Otherwise Steam Machines are just another PC with SteamOS installed, which you can do on any PC for free.

That pretty much covers it, i've bought many consoles for my son over the years, including GTA V back in september, i watched while he played it for the 1st time and even though i want the game on PC if it doesn't, then i still wouldn't get one, even as a teenager in the 80's i just didn't like them.

The only controller i ever used was the Microsoft Sidewinder Joystick in the 90's for space sims and Tomb Raider, i just prefer KB and mouse.

yeah, for people who prefer controllers agreed, but i'm not sure using a steam machine on a TV instead of a monitor would show off the need for the extra cost of buying the high end gpu's aswell.

I have a joystick (for space sims) and a controller (for games that have a UI clearly designed for controllers, like Bard's Tale) attached to my PC...along with a track ball (preferred) and a mouse (since my trackball doesn't have a third button and very rarely I need that button).

I don't quite get what the whole 'SteamOS so you can use a controller' is about...

HDTVs are really PC Monitors with a Tuner and a Video Input switch. As long as the card can support the game at 1920 resolution, then it will be good on a TV. If it was a CRT TV, then the game is going to run at 640 by 480, so not much of a video card is needed for that.

Um...

This might seem a bit of a silly question but...

What games do you play on it?

As far as I understand it, any of the Linux compatible games offered by Steam. I've just had a quick look and I've heard of... around 5% of them, many of them indies (not that that's a bad thing) and FTP games. It doesn't seem to be a great selection.

I've said it before, but... I just can't understand who these machines are supposed to be for...

As if on cue, here comes someone to explain how running a Windows emulation under Linux is superior to just running Windows in the first place....

In some cases, the software is faster under Wine. Also, Wine is not an emulator.

Almost ten minutes...took longer than I expected.

Okay, I'll bite...what is it?

It's a compatibility layer.

Also, not everyone likes Windows. Some people hate the OS with a passion. However, there are some cases when one wants to use Windows software. In that case, Wine is a fine option.

"An emulator is hardware or software or both that duplicates (or emulates) the functions of one computer system (the guest) in another computer system (the host), different from the first one, so that the emulated behavior closely resembles the behavior of the real system (the guest)."

Other than the developers of WINE coining this new phrase "compatibility layer" and suggesting that since their methods are different than methods used in other emulators so this new term should be applied to it...how is something that does what an emulator does not an emulator? I'm more than willing to acknowledge that their method is original, but I think their claim to not being an emulator involves redefining what an emulator is by adding methodologies...specifically every methodology except theirs.

I'm also more than willing to acknowledge that their method is clever and fast. But it is doing what an emulator does, so it is by definition an emulator. They don't get to redefine the term just because they found a better way to do the job.

It's not an emulator. Its goal is not to replicate Windows but to make Windows software work in a non-Windows environment. They're two separate things.

http://ign.com/articles/2014/01/08/ces-steam-controller-hands-on-impressions

"But after 30 minutes with the controller, consider me a bit underwhelmed"

I'm seeing a lot of this around the net.

Funny, I didn't notice the word replicate in the definition. I did see 'emulated behavior closely resembles the real system'...such similarity would seem to include allowing software designed for the emulated environment to work. Emulators don't replicate anything, they allow software from one system to run on another. That's their defining function.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against WINE. I just find it interesting that they are so concerned with it being not that that they had to coin a new term so they could be something else that performs the same defining function, and try to redefine emulator in the process. It's like a duck standing up and saying "I might waddle and quack, but I'm a pomegranate." What's so bad about being an emulator in the first place?

http://www.techspot.com/news/55249-valve-shows-off-13-steam-machines-covering-all-shapes-sizes-and-price-points.html

didn't see any one post this in this thread so far, so there.

i was completely uninterested until i saw some of those cpu/gpu specs. They aren't "Top End", however im finding that my "top end" PC with 8 cores and 16gb of ram is actually hindering the perfomance of my gaming rather than helping it in some games that aren't as propperly optimized.

especially with indie or beta games as they tend to make the mistake of trying to use all of my cores at once or even distribute the processing amongst them and in a few cases that has hurt rendering and FPS.

and with those price points if they remain true upon release its actually a very viable option for people who are looking to buy a gaming PC around that time. Ive still got about 2 more years on my current PC before im going to be buying another.

I'm not sure if it's a matter of preferring a controller. I play games at a desk, but also on a PC connected to a TV in my living room. At the desk I use keyboard/mouse, but in the living room I use an Xbox 360 controller so I can kick back on the couch and play. This obviously works better with certain types of games than others. Some games are no fun with a controller.

Me either...I wasn't getting that implication, though. Valve designed a controller that they claim is supposed to make it easier to play games that you'd typically need a mouse for, so maybe that's what people are on about. It sounds interesting, but I'm skeptical of a controller that relies on a trackpad.

On top of higher resolutions and framerates a better GPU should allow you to enable more eye candy (nicer lighting/shadows, nicer textures, ambient occlusion, AA/AF, tessellation, etc.) if the game engine allows for it.

IMO the streaming of games from another PC seems like the most interesting feature. You could potentially get a really low-end (and cheap and/or older) machine running the free SteamOS and stream games from a more powerful Windows machine in another room (that runs Windows games). In theory it'd be like an extension of your gaming rig into your living room without buying another full-on gaming rig. It could go nowhere, but it could also be pretty convenient if it works well.

Interesting. The vast majority of previews that I've read were based on beta hardware and the reviewers were cautiously optimistic about it. IMO that's actually pretty encouraging for something that people have little experience with and that's such a departure from conventional input devices. But hey, he used it for a whole 30 minutes, so he's probably the final word on the subject.