It's just dead-on-arrival.
I'm not convinced this hardware is "an extension of PC gaming, not a console" when the hardware is generations out of date. To credit Microsoft, Sony, and other players, the reality is that unless you are "in the game" for decades, you HAVE to provide a convincing differentiator from the other console markets.
Steam had this with the Steam Deck and personally, I see the world moving to thin clients that play games via some remote desktop infrastructure. It makes no sense to buy this hardware even if it was 500-700 dollars.
In my opinion, it would've been worth the money to just buy a gaming PC, put it in a garage, hidden room, etc with the networking gear, then stream it over the network to a Steam Link or using Apollo/Artemis/Moonlight/Parsec; anything.
Tangential to this discussion: Steam is in the unique position to create a kernel anti-cheat. I know that's not popular. But they are the only ones with the install base AND ability to pull it off in a such a fashion that wouldn't be so god-awful. It's clear that multiplayer gaming isn't going to go away from kernel anti-cheat. It's also clear that developers are still going to target Windows-only with Steam Deck support as a best-kept basis.
I don't see the Steam Machine/Deck as a competitor until they solve the kernel anti-cheat portion. Until then, it can play games that are older, not popular, or single-player which is a valid market but not one that I am a part of, anyway.
EDIT:
S) It's not meant for you.
A) Sure. But you're telling me people are going to pay $1,050 to couch-potato games? I don't see that market and I'm not really sure how you would swing that.
A) Which isn't a valid differentiator. The PS5 is 6 years old and not $1,050. Even if it was $600, that's not a good deal.
A) Sure. But you could also save money and put a regular PC behind or near your monitor or TV.
A) I get it, but there's so many cheaper options out there. Honestly, it'd be better value to get a Steam Deck, get a docking station, then hook that up to your TV than to buy this.
I don't get it. I don't get the market segment that does want this when there's so many better options on the market.
I think it's far from dead-on-arrival. I don't want to buy a PC, put it in a garage, etc. I want a little box I can easily hook up to my TV and play Steam games on. This scratches that itch. I'm old and want convenience. I know a lot of other people in my peer group who are going to pick one up too. Also I don't play any competitive games where I care about anti-cheat. I just want to play my RPG/JRPG's on a big screen and I want it to be plug-n-play.
I think dead on arrival is too extreme but the niche is certainly hard to see. The "just works" crowd will buy consoles and the "max performance" crowd won't be happy with this value. The niche is something like "willing to tolerate some headaches but not so much as to build my own PC". That exists but seems small.
Feels like they should have gone cheap. Undercut the switch and be the cheapest way to play games on your TV. We're pretty far past performance equalling more entertainment. A 150-200 box to play indie side scrollers is a niche that exists.
I don't buy consoles because I have been a PC gamer for over a decaded. But you know, I'm a parent now. And I want couch gaming with my family. That's the use case for me my family. I got mu child a steam deck (I have one too). A steam deck is a terrible idea for an elementary schooler. It has to stay docked now because she's already broken parts of it.
But even docked, it's a winner for her and all her friends. She's converting more parents over via her friends. The well off ones are just buying from Valve like me. The less so, are using whatever PC is around to mixed results. I'll see how it goes as the kids get older, but I think there's a bigger case than you think and I think it's mostly years long PC gamers who want a more communal experience be it with partners, kids, or friends.
I think the market exists but I don't think it's that big. I think the "play boomerang fu on my TV for cheap and little hassle" is a gigantic one.
There's better options at this price point, I'm afraid.
Even buying an old tiny micro PC that's 10th gen Intel would've been a cheaper buy.
The reason I'm going to buy a Steam Machine instead of building a computer is the verified program.
I've absolutely loved being able to check a store listing page and immediately know if a game will run well on the Steam Deck. Having the same program for a higher end target would be really nice for me.
Also, getting the CEC right is really valuable for me. If I'm building a computer there's no chance I am going to be able to get it to play nice with the TV using just the controller.
This runs SteamOS and is an officially supported platform that, if it has legs, will be something developers may want to target as a platform and make sure their games work a la Steam Deck verification.
There's also potential for community fixes for older games with issues. And easier troubleshooting cause you can just look up "fix for X game Steam Machine", or "does X game work on Steam Machine"
There are advantages to this over something generic, or building your own machine.
Yeah I understand I can get a much better gaming PC at much lower price point but that was kind of the point I was trying to make. I'm in a position where I'd happily pay more for convenience and I know many other people who feel the same way. I think there is a huge market here and this isn't a dead-on-arrival situation at all. Valve knows this.
Yeah, for sure people will buy this for those reasons. Some people also bought an nvidia shield and other gimped android boxes. It's honestly really disappointing though. I would love a steam machine to be competitive and cost less and eventually phase out windows gaming. This hardware launch falls really short though. The appeal is going to be limited. Oh well, maybe next time.
I don't think that market is as big as you think it is and if anything, it's only going to push people away from the Steam Machine into another micro PC platform that will be able to run Steam OS.
Put it in a garage?
lmao bring up the wife factor, please.
We are devs here. We can have and build gaming PCs I hope?
Yes I will gatekeep.
Yes it is the best as I can get and play anything I want.
> Yes I will gatekeep.
Well, you're not doing a good job of it! I'm going to buy one and use it to play games and have a good time.
There's also the kid factor if you're playing on the TV in the living room. Kids have a way of walking in at the worst time. As someone who enjoys violent titles, I get it.
Hacker News is not a representative sample of the addressable market
This line should be auto-pinned at the top of every single HN thread where the topic crosses over into target markets for products. (I'm joking, but the point stands - HN is both wildly different than the average individual and many of those on HN overlook that fact)
Normal people will not know what Steam even is.
They will buy a PS5, Switch or Xbox.
If you know PC gaming you will just get a gaming desktop. With newer hardware.
Normal people will not know what Steam even is.
They will buy a PS5, Switch or Xbox.
If you know PC gaming you will just get a gaming desktop. With newer hardware.
"For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially..."
"No wireless? Less space than a Nomad? Lame"
Same here. My home computer only runs Windows because I play competitive online games. It would be incredible if Valve built some kind of certified, locked-down kernel, but I doubt that will happen.
The online discourse around this is also incredibly toxic, filled with utopians who don’t understand how serious cheating is in these games, or that kernel anti-cheat, while not perfect, is the best solution available today.
> filled with utopians who don’t understand how serious cheating is in these games
FWIW, the easiest way to dispel the fallacies pumped out by these individuals is to ask how much time they've sunk into a reasonably contemporary competitive online game. I almost never meet people who have these delusions about anticheat being ineffective that also has actually invested significant (>500) hours into the games that they're appropriate for.
(people who work with spam and fraud/abuse prevention also usually don't have these delusions, because the underlying economics are similar. turns out that actually having experience with a thing is enough to disillusion most people of stupid ideas about that thing, who know?)
Counter. As a group of 4 dota players who are software engineers, we have a collective 20k hours.
All of us refuse kernel level anti cheat.
Dota overwatch is the best we have available for anti cheat. It's better than kernel level anti cheat
Dota isn't a very cheatable game to begin with. Even with the best micro you can't reach a high elo without the appropriate high level planning skills.
If we look at a game like Rust it's impossible for it to exist without a kernel anti-cheat today
"effective" and "solved" are too easily conflated, here. Consoles have the solution, if you enforce hardware attestation then you reduce the attack surface to people using XIM, Cronus and other detectable exploits. When you allow PCIe/ReBAR, hypervisors, custom bootloaders, custom mobo firmware, third-party hardware drivers, firmware macros, lagswitches, and whitelist process injection, people will always exploit you. Cheating is inherent to the architecture of PC gaming.
Ring 0 anticheat is a mitigation, and just one step down the road of enforcing fairness. The goal of erasing cheaters quickly becomes a Procrustian bed that alienates fair players and funds cheat developers, there's nothing that gamedevs can do client-side to solve this problem without redefining how PC gaming works. Out of all the games I've put 500+hrs into, votekick is the only working anticheat that I've encountered.
The only competitive game I’ve put serious hours into that had votekick was CS, and teams would almost never kick their own cheaters, even when they were obvious, because they wanted that sweet Elo.
...and then you have hypervisor-based cheats, hardware cheats and whatnot. I'd say that AI flagging of suspicious cases + additional targeted scrutiny is the way forward - for competitive platforms, that is. That, and trust factor - I practically never get bad games when I play alone in cs:go/cs2 (~20k mmr eu, lem/smfc prior to that) - both in terms of somebody cheating and in terms of people that are full of themselves in one way or another. I'd say that combining these techniques should be very effective.
The only effective approach is to use as many layers as possible to increase the cost of creating and using cheats. Kernel anti-cheat is an effective layer because it forces cheaters to either buy specialized hardware or gamble that their hypervisor won’t be detected through heuristics.
Competitive games will likely add AI-based flagging into the mix, but it still doesn’t make sense to make cheating as trivial as adding a few uprobes/kprobes on a Linux box.
I think calling the hardware generations out of date when it performs on par with a PS5 on new games is a bit inaccurate.
I would, admittedly, be interested in an anticheat that reboots the machine for deck into a secure mode.
The Zen 4 cores in it is Ryzen 7000 Series, we're on 9000 series.
The GPU is on par with the 3060 12GB and RX 7000 series GPUs which are older.
The PS5 is six years old! This is a brand new machine!
The age of hardware is getting less and less relevant though as time goes on. The differences between generations visually is getting pretty small and good enough doesn't need the latest most powerful features. It was designed to a benchmark of good enough graphics for a reasonable price then the price got blown up by AI datacenters prebuying years worth of production of memory with the insane firehose of money they're able to access.
I just don't see a Linux gaming machine being a reference piece of hardware for big name publishers when they are making Windows-only games.
The Steam Survey is a better indicator of what you should target vs. something like the Steam Machine or Deck IMO.
It's not about a consistent target like consoles and more that even older hardware performs acceptably with minor concessions to graphics these days. People were already primed to accept that trade off before the AI boom exploded memory prices because crypto miners were buying up loads of cards for alt coins that didn't have ASICs available.
I can get something like 80% of the graphics with 20% of the GPU because the places where games are really pushing graphics out now are really resource intensive. Ray tracing is amazing but we got REALLY REALLY good at making games look good without it too.
> it performs on par with a PS5
Wait, really? I looked at the specs and saw like 2/3 the CUs of a PS5.
The benchmarks I've seen - only a few, and only because my partner was watching them - show it basically neck and neck with a PS5. Not a PS5 Pro, to be clear, and a PS5 slim is only $650, but the Steam Machine isn't underpowered in console gaming terms.
But better CUs I assume, Steam Machine is RDNA3, PS5 is RDNA2.
Price point is PS5 Pro which technically is RDNA2 but has back ported features from RDNA3 & 4. It has 60 cores. Consensus is PS5 Pro outperforms steam machine by 20-30% on graphics.
>In my opinion, it would've been worth the money to just buy a gaming PC, put it in a garage, hidden room, etc with the networking gear, then stream it over the network to a Steam Link or using Apollo/Artemis/Moonlight/Parsec; anything.
During covid, instead of getting second budget gaming PC, I setup janky multi-seat program (Aster), to split single windows machine where I could play locally and someone else could play on steamlink. There's so many games out there that you can run multiple instances simultaneously. Or simply stream desktops to media room paired with a good remote.
It was very janky, setup, streaming DRM (or not). But justifies world of spending on one highend system than multiple mid / tier. The Aster program was designed for low income nations where you split a single workstation into like 8+ substations (i.e. education). TBH if Valve sold a 2-3k steammachine super host that can stream multiple games to different thin client, and value proposition is this is the only entertainment unit for your entire house, I think it would pique interests. Maybe tile different streams into one client for splitscreen playing. Sell those controllers.
The hard truth is that as much as you think yourself as a "proper" gamer, this segment always has, always will, _not_ be the proper target segment. Don't forget that mobile gaming has more revenue than everything else… combined. They have a play on this, and as much expansive as it looks, it's mostly due to the hardware inflation, and compared to alternatives, it won't look bad at all. For the segments that matters.
I don't see a market of people who want to pay Valve $1,050 to play Steam games on a custom Linux machine with old hardware that won't support big name games that have kernel anti-cheat on them.
I really don't see the vision Valve is looking for here.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> In my opinion, it would've been worth the money to just buy a gaming PC, put it in a garage, hidden room, etc with the networking gear, then stream it over the network to a Steam Link
Well if you scroll down the page, it's presented as a selling point of the machine
> I see the world moving to thin clients that play games via some remote desktop infrastructure.
You can barely code in such an environment to a satisfactory degree. You want to stream 4k games with low latency?
Google Stadia worked like a charm. I put hundreds of hours into it without a single problem. The tech felt like magic.
This is going to be very geographically dependent, surely?
What are you coding over the network such that the network is a bottleneck?
> In my opinion, it would've been worth the money to just buy a gaming PC, put it in a garage, hidden room, etc with the networking gear, then stream it over the network to a Steam Link or using Apollo/Artemis/Moonlight/Parsec; anything.
I'm someone who has built dozens of gaming PCs, and wired my house. I also have zero interest in doing the above... if I have to pay few hundred extra to get a Steam machine hooked up to a TV without all that hassle... I'll do that.
It's not the absolute best value for gaming. It's not horrible in current market conditions but it's also not targeting "best value for gaming" anywhere in the marketing materials. It's hardware that can play your Steam library on your TV. There are harder, less expensive ways to do that, as there have been for ages.
If you're a console gamer, there are less expensive, just as easy options to play console games, so it's definitely not suited for that market.
It's really only catering to people with disposable income that want a cute way to hook up a Steam-capable machine to a TV. It's not a huge market, nor is it a non-existent market.
It was probably a bigger market at $750 than $1050, but we can't have nice things.
> Steam is in the unique position to create a kernel anti-cheat
Valve has a long-term policy of being utter trash at game security.
> I know that's not popular. But they are the only ones with the install base AND ability to pull it off in a such a fashion that wouldn't be so god-awful.
Epic Games does fine (though they did it by purchasing an anticheat startup).
EDIT: Oh, you're talking about making an anti-cheat focused Linux kernel build? Meh, still would not trust Valve on that front given their long-standing policy of not giving a shit.
>It's just dead-on-arrival...the hardware is generations out of date
Some people say this same thing about the Nintendo Switch and its successor, but here we are, with the former closing in on highest selling console of all time, and the latter tracking above that.
Sure, but I didn't buy a Switch because of its power or because of its form factor. I bought it because that was the way to play Zelda.
So why do people buy a Switch 2?
I guess because my kids keep breaking the shoddy slide-on joycons, and the new magnetic ones are a much better design.
I don't have one, but I assume it's a better Switch. All the existing games work on it, some with enhanced versions (but probably load times are better anyway, right?), and there's new games that only run on the Switch 2. Switch 1 releases are likely to dry up over time.
For all the new Nintendo first-party games.
The best at the moment is DK Bananza but it’s nowhere near a Zelda game. The rest are updates and remaster of previous games.
There isn’t teal system seller at the moment
Who thought that? The switch was an explosion when it launched.
So many people (hard-core gamers) thought the switch would be DOA when it was announced. Nintendo just doesn't target those. I assume the same here. People also thought no one would be interested in the steam deck either. You know, because it was just a slightly better switch. People really don't understand how small the hard-core competitive gamer market is. Literally no one I know plays competitive online games and we all spend hundreds of dollars on steam a year. Valve is targeting us.
Not OC, but I believe the RAM price surge is what will kill the Steam Machine. For the same price, you can get a gaming laptop with better specs.
[dead]
I don't remember anyone saying this about the Switch and at the time, the reviews for North America at least were very positive.
Because a console is a console.
Look at the PS2. Incredible games on bespoke custom harware.
We didnt know how good we had it.
Nobody cares about the Switch hardware, they but it to play Nintendo games.
This is just a x86 PC.
[dead]