Originally Posted by
Neukifly
If you're specifically referring to Valve's rumoured "Steambox" then its success should be mostly determined by which market it targets and how it integrates with that market's needs. Granted, a steam-based games console would be a first for the games market; and yes, the hardware and services will be most likely limited next to the (upgradable) PC; and yes, of course, there's little sense in buying a Steambox if you already own a games console such as an Xbox 360 or PS3. However, my argument was taking into account those who have neither PCs nor 7th-gen (I think...) games consoles.
No console gamer in the right mind would expect any games console to be as good as the PC in terms of hardware, so if they were going to buy a games console, it wouldn't be out of a decision based on hardware; most likely it'll be based on realistic gaming preferences, for example, the freedom to play games in front of a large TV (as opposed to a tiny monitor), to not expend thought on things like hardware requirements, upgrading or installling the latest drivers, and perhaps to play games with their family--because, let's face it: PCs, for all their technical superiority, are not the most family-friendly devices in the world; the very name kinda implies that. On top of that, they aren't even all that friendly between each other due to the fact that no 2 PCs are the same in terms of hardware or performance.
The question of whether the Steambox will be a success or not will lie in publisher support: Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will probably go their own separate ways and not support the Steambox, because ultimately this would mean Valve potentially gaining overall control over digital distribution of their software. If the Steambox is doomed to fail, then it'll have more to do with a lack of overall publisher support than hardware. Granted, a lack of 3rd-party support from Sony and Microsoft could be a sales factor, but Valve do at least make great games themselves, and depending on how they appeal to smaller 3rd party games developers, could gain an attractive library of games over time with their new console. They could potentially release better games too, because they would be more suited to hardware that they themselves designed (or are familiar with) unlike PC games which are forced to strike a balance between satisfying users of high-performance and low-performance PCs (No PC user therefore recieves the optimum experience from their games). Let's not forget, Sony were once in a similar position to Valve (as were Microsoft), but proved through their original PlayStation that you don't necessarily need a prior reputation as a games company to make a commercially successful games console; in the end it all comes down to innovation. Thankfully, not all consumers take the mentality of "They've had no experience in this field, or it's never been done before, so it can't be a success", otherwise games consoles like the Playstation and Wii wouldn't have stood the test of time. Unfortunately however, we are living in a period where games development across multiple platforms is a more costly business risk (at least in terms of profit margins), hence the fact that many of the largest games publishers carefully pick which platforms to support so as to minimise the cost of resources. Unless they can be sure of a significant return on their investment, they'll rarely design games that support all major platforms (as opposed to the past), or if at all, only through lousy porting.
Not really an option for me. I consider the XBox (I take it you're referring to the 360) as an outdated, noisy, clunky and unreliable hardware set that cannot be justified by an otherwise great online service. Same with the PS3, albeit to a lesser extent. To be honest, I'm not all that in to the idea Steam-based gaming either. I like the concept, but not the fact that it also opens an exploit in which games publishers can implement extortionate methods of digital distribution and sell games as licenses. I wouldn't mind Steam as an option, but I still prefer to own hard retail copies of games as opposed to what these days are intangible entities that can be expired at the whim of games publishers. Moreover, the publisher-friendly (with of course, a consumer-friendly interface) nature of Steam makes it too easy for games publishers to release glitchy/unfinished games with the attitude of "Well we can release patches later if enough gamers care to complain about the issues with our games, so let's not bother to initially test them properly?". This is main attraction of Steam as far as profit-first, gamers-second games publishers are concerned, and I'll give it another gen or two until Microsoft, Sony and eventually, Nintendo all release their own proprietry versions of Steam consoles, complete with their own Steam-based services.
As for "compromise", well most games, including PC games are compromised in some way or other; it's not something that's necessarily exclusive to games consoles. The one advantage of console-based games is that they are, all things considered (besides hardware) the best choice for playing first party titles, at least with them there's the potential to play games that make full use of their hardware, an option that's just not commercially viable with PC games. Consequently, PC games, despite being techically superior in outright terms, are going to be mired by the odd glitch here and there, inconsistent framerates (which is not always down to hardware btw), interruptions from background programs etc. Personally I'd rather play a game with a lower resolution (1080p is enough for me) and lesser textures if it means a more consistent framerate, no unforgivable glitches, and no external program interruptions.
Also, I'm not sure if I want to be associated with what unfortunately comes with PC gaming: that is, the existance of snobbish, boys club-esque, elitist-minded, online gaming communities in which members don't want to know you unless your PC has the same gaming performance as theirs. At least if lag occurs between games consoles under one brand, it won't be down to hardware differences. Also, since I don't want to feel like I have to change my lifestyle in order to enjoy the finest games, a steam-based console might be more appealing to me than a PC installed with Steam, however superior the service with the latter.
