With Windows 8.1 out soon, which improves Windows 8 massively, I see it continuing to dominate into the future where desktops become increasingly marginalised.
Can't help thinking there's a Linux kernel based OS by some internet company already out there that's selling on a few tablets. Obviously it can't be selling as many tablets as the continuing-to-dominate Windows so it must be an aberration. And there's another unix based OS out there doing even better, from some company in Cupertino I think. What are their names again?
Never mind, Windows will continue to dominate. On tablets. Right!
In the market of "Tablets on which you can game through Steam", the GP is speculating that Windows will continue to be the leader.
In that regard I do think Windows will dominate, and in the future Surface devices will probably replace laptops in their market.
Yes, a modern tablet device could never compare to an equally modern desktop PC in terms of power and capacity. They're in entirely different leagues. The sorts of games able to run on the latter could never run on the former, i.e. you won't be seeing a game like Beyond: Two Souls or Destiny on a tablet for many years to come, not without some serious stripping of features, content, and graphics performance.
Take WoW again as an example; I need a keyboard for my many (many) keybinds, a mouse for movement (because keyboard turners are just bad), and, really; an 8" monitor? Please. Tablets are simply a non-starter for complex (in terms of input and required reaction speed) games.
Tablet gaming is for my Mom and myself when I'm bored waiting at an airport. Sure, it's a huge market, but not all gamers are satisfied with Candy Crush.
As an aside, I would love for you to enlighten me as to how my first post could be improved.
I also have to disagree with your dismissal of horsepower as the root of the issue, because I can currently hook up any keyboard, mouse, or even game controller I want to my phone or tablet. Additionally, some portable devices are capable of hooking up to a larger screen via a microHDMI port. Their only limitation, then, would be the internal hardware components that ultimately add up to their "horsepower", with the added advantage of portability.
Also, if I have a tablet with as much horsepower as my desktop then it would necessarily be more expensive than said desktop. So, you're proposing that I buy a tablet which is more expensive than my desktop and hook it up to all the peripherals I need so that I can... wait, what is the advantage here exactly?
You say that I gain portability; right, as long as I bring along my keyboard, mouse, and a monitor. Now that's what I call portability! Certain games just don't work without a large screen and more advanced input devices. Again, completely different markets.
As an aside, since you obviously took exception to my terminology, note that I put quotes around "casual" and "real" for a reason. I don't mean to look down upon the casuals, but to believe that they are basically one in the same is just ignorant. Those in either segment have very different tastes and want very different things from the games they play. I want games with depth that I can sink endless hours into. My girlfriend wants an occasional distraction. You're never going to sell us on the same marketing lines. We want different things.
Surprising to very few, this distinction just so happens to align pretty damn close with the alleged "casual"/"real" divide.
(Also, you've been able to dock laptops for years, that isn't some sort of neat "Surface-like-device" trick, yet all the "real" gamers that I know still own dedicated desktop machines. Their screens, keyboards, mice, and controllers are all bulky. Their setup is already the antithesis of portable, going through all that trouble just to use a docked underpowered device just doesn't make sense.)
Yes, the touch interface sucks for hardcore gaming. But it's not implausible that somebody would figure out the least-obtrusive way to add good gamer-friendly controls to a tablet and a big vendor throws their weight behind this. Then what happens? Then suddenly the big difference between a tablet and a PC gamer is hardware, and tablet gaming suddenly eats up the indie market and starts moving north.
Sure, a PC can push a lot more polies, and so will always have a certain market of core gamers... but look at how Blizzard has always done well targeting aging hardware. The lion's share of the market doesn't have a bleeding-edge video card.
Fact is, the best interfaces for serious gamers are either keyboard + mouse, or a game pad. Even if touch was the next big input, Linux has it, and Canonical is talking about merging Ubuntu touch into Ubuntu desktop in 14.04.
How I see things going, though of course I could be wrong, is that at home you'll probably just have a monitor, with your KB/Mouse setup of course, and you'll just plug your Surface like device into it.
I think the Console ideology this gen also supports my point somewhat, they didn't go all out for power with a big complicated architecture, they're just using x86 with a low power processor designer.
Plus with the tapering off with graphics gains that we're seeing you'll be able to create a fairly similar experience to the high end on lower power devices, which I think will benefit that type of device.
Also I also think Windows RT was a bad idea, they should've just gone all in with the Surface Pro, which I think is the future honestly.
Maybe this will seem like a very foolish comment in 3 or 4 years, but I doubt it.
I think the failure of that campaign says a lot more about the viability of Canonical's dreams than many are willing to admit.
For myself, and I'm sure many others, spending 800 dollars on a product I won't see for nearly a year is a bit too much...
I think it will come down to a few things:
1. Price - How much is a Windows 8/8.1 license these days? Why would a games console manufacturer want to bring on that additional cost?
2. Performance - Microsoft is too busy tripping over its own feet and supporting legacy enterprise applications and environments from decades long past to be able to tackle performance issues in a serious manner.[1] There's a reason the Xbone switches from Windows to an "Xbox OS" to run games.
3. Portability - Install a Linux flavor of your choice on your Raspi, phone, tablet, Steambox, Nvidiabox, whatever. The limitations will ultimately be upon the hardware, and the OS can get the heck out of the way and just let the games run.
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsofts-biggest-problem-in...
If you're talking about "also having desktop mode", Microsoft is only going to push that into the background with each new version of Windows, until desktop mode becomes like DOS - dead and buried.
As to input mechanisms and screen real estate, it's still a Windows PC, that means it comes with all the advantages of one.
This means a number of things: 1) Valve is late to this game and is fighting entrenched existing app stores that sell tons of games 2) Pricing is an issue as these app stores don't really have high ASPs on games - tablet users are cheapskates compared to PC gamers 3) The form factor is wildly different, making it tough/nearly impossible for Valve (and devs) to port. 4) The freedom to side-load for those platforms allowing it may lose it at any time (see: google play services)
All of these mean that tablets are not exactly fertile ground for Valve/Steam. As far as they're concerned, the PC (and Linux) is where it's at (I still think they could out-do Ouya/PSVita with a steambox, but seems like the idea is either a non-starter or ahead of it's time).
Because Windows 8 is a significant step forward in touch based UI, when you buy you're next laptop/desktop you will be installing Windows 8 on it. You definitely won't be installing linux.
Just look at the games that Microsoft is currently peddling with their App Store. This stuff is not a competitor to Steam. It isn't even in the same market.
You can run some pretty decent games on the hardware that ships on the Surface Pro. Sure, you aren't going to want to play BF4 or whatever Bethesda comes up with next, but as hardware cycles continue the playable-game-gap between desktop/laptop/tablet is only going to shrink.
I game today on a 1.5 yr old HP laptop with an ATI 6750M card inside, and it's more than adequate for stuff I've thrown at it. Sure, I'm not gaming on ultra, but my FPS is just fine at low/medium. These days games look just fine at those detail levels, although maybe it's just that I used to play Doom on a 33Mhz 386 and had to shrink the screen size to about a 2x2" square to get decent frame rates.
Why? Why does anyone care what it runs? Why would OEM's want to try to sell it?