Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

> The existing Alienware Alpha (which is basically what the SteamOS box is) benches about the same as an Nvidia GTX 750Ti, which outpowers both the XBox One and the PS4. It should have no problem matching or exceeding either console's performance, just like the existing Alpha.

Except that it runs on Linux, which has less performing drivers than on Windows, and Linux ports are usually far less optimized than their Windows counterparts as well (which is not hard to understand since most games are made with DX in mind).

View on HN

Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming); they directly compete with Xbox/PS4.

Most Steam Machines are Nvidia based, which makes sense, they have the best drivers, and they're generally 1:1 as performant as their windows drivers. I have a GTX970 in my Ubuntu machine and it rocks, supports my gsync monitor and everything; trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff...

> Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming); they directly compete with Xbox/PS4.

I hope you are joking, because branding-wise the Steam Machines are a clear mess and completely confusing for people who don't know how to read PC specs. Hell, you have Steam Machines planned with only Intel HD graphics and also called "Steam Machines" just like the Alienware Alpha and the Syber ones, while power-wise they fall in totally different categories. That's the best way to kill your brand, at least 3DO never did that kind of mistake.

> they're generally 1:1 as performant as their windows drivers.

No, this is clearly false. I don't know where you get this impression, check almost every benchmark out therefore for Borderlands 2, CS:GO, Witcher 2, Bioshock Infinite and almost every other AAA game out there, you will see that the Linux performance is clearly behind. I'm a Linux gamer as well but at least I don't pretend we are at the same level as Windows, because that's a clear lie at this point.

> trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff...

It should be, but many ports on Linux are far from being optimized (some rely on OpenGL 3.x to maintain compatibility with AMD while it's clearly less efficient than OpenGL 4.x calls) while console ports are much more likely to be tested thoroughly on a single hardware based and optimized for it.

> I hope you are joking, because branding-wise the Steam Machines are a clear mess and completely confusing for people who don't know how to read PC specs.

The entire point of Steam Machines is not to deal with this, just buy the cheapest Alienware, done. If you care about that sort of thing, you buy a different one.

> check almost every benchmark out therefore for Borderlands 2, CS:GO, Witcher 2, Bioshock Infinite and almost every other AAA game out there.

Doesn't matter. I have an Alienware Alpha and I can get 60 fps on every one of these games in SteamOS, as least as good as the modern consoles, Windows performance it depends; some are better, some are not; all TVs and projectors are 60hz, so unless someone is coming out with 144hz gsync TVs, then it's more than fine.

Sure, we get boned by games like Dying Light, but that's just software, totally fixable.

> t should be, but many ports on Linux are far from being optimized

You could make that argument about any crossplatform game.

> The entire point of Steam Machines is not to deal with this, just buy the cheapest Alienware, done. If you care about that sort of thing, you buy a different one.

Yeah, and then complain that the newest games in 2016 don't run well on your hardware, while you thought it was just like a console! What a surprise!

> I can get 60 fps on every one of these games in SteamOS

Put in ultra details, with anti aliasing maxed up, and I'll be very surprised if you still get steady 60 fps, in all honesty. And oh, it's been benchmarked that anti-aliasing makes the performance go down significantly, I'll get numbers for you if you don't believe me.

> Sure, we get boned by games like Dying Light, but that's just software, totally fixable.

Yeah, except that it has taken them 3 months to fix to an acceptable level. Please explain that to consumers buying it on Day 1. Oh, and remember, they are "console gamers" since you said so, so I hope you enjoy the fun communication with people who don't care about specs or optimization or drivers.

> You could make that argument about any crossplatform game.

Yes, except that the requirements for Linux ports are usually higher than for Windows. Source: Steam requirements. Again, please go explain that to console gamers.

Custom built high end PCs have problems getting 60fps at ultra with maxxed AA in some games. Literally nobody is expecting such performance from these machines.

I do not know for steam os, but I am using ubuntu since many years and I do not tweak much my system. Each time I encounter a crash, a couple of days latter, there is a fix that is automatically installed (apt-get update, upgrade).

I imagine that steamOS can update drivers transparently to have always best configuration for gaming. The support team will only need to answer clients when a fix will arrive automatically.

The entire point of Steam Machines is not to deal with this, just buy the cheapest Alienware, done.

Except that obviously won't work. In the console world I really don't have to deal with this. I buy a PS4 at launch and I can play every PS4 game that comes out from now until they stop making PS4 games. That is obviously not with Steam Machines. Will the cheapest Steam Machine play every SteamOS game that comes out in 2 years time without problem? If the answer is 'no' then it is something that I have to be aware of and deal with.

The other option is that Valve steps in and says that if you want your game to be SteamOS certified it must be optimized to run well on the slowest Steam Machine we've ever released, but I wonder if they're willing to that. Can you imagine telling game developers in 2017 that they must make their games work fine on 2015 era Intel graphics cards?

>Can you imagine telling game developers in 2017 that they must make their games work fine on 2015 era Intel graphics cards?

This is totally fine for loads of indie games already. And If you replace 2015 with 2013, of course you could do this. PC technology has slowed down a lot compared to 10 years ago, and it's not the constant upgrading it used to be.

Sure it's fine for loads of games, but unless it's fine for all games you're going to have to produce an N tiered system of steam machines (maybe class them on an A-E scale, and developers write something like "must have a C or better steam machine) and and the consumer is going to have to deal with system specs just like they do today (and just like they don't have to with consoles).

> PC technology has slowed down a lot compared to 10 years ago, and it's not the constant upgrading it used to be.

You know that VR is coming right?

This HAS to happen otherwise Steam Machines are useless. Sure, in a few years Steam Machine Two will come out, then games can target that if they want.

On the other side of the coin they WILL stop making PS4 games, just like all consoles when they reach EOL. Yet you can play new games on a steam machine in decades to come.

You can play 2017 games on lower graphics quality (the same quality you get in 2015 games now) just like the consoles. Even if the games they get on the PS4 in 2017 are new, they are bound to remain the same quality in graphics.

> Yet you can play new games on a steam machine in decades to come.

Where? Good luck playing something on a 2014 Steam Machine in 2024. If there is still one game 10 years later working on such a configuration that will be a miracle. PC gaming moves very fast, that's the point of PC gaming usually : you upgrade often.

> that's the point of PC gaming usually : you upgrade often.

No. That hasn't been the case for years, now. I built a machine in 2010, and gave it its first upgrade a couple of months ago.

And to tell the truth, I could've gone on a couple years more before I really needed to upgrade. The biggest bottleneck was the GPU (an nVidia GTX 460). However, I splurged on a few upgrades (GTX 960, up to 16GB of RAM (from 8), and an SSD). It's once again a beast, even with the same CPU from 2010 (AMD Phenom II X6 1090T).

And that extra money that I've put into this system? I've made most of it back in the way of cheaper games.

you can play new games on a steam machine in decades to come.

Decades? Decade, maybe. But then again they where still releasing PS2 games a decade after the PS2 came out and they'll almost certainly be releasing PS3 and Xbox360 games a decade after those consoles came out too.

No doubt that there will be lots of games coming out in both 2017 and 2020 that will run just fine on a 2015 steam machine, but unless it is ever single game they release for SteamOS, then we're right back to the classic PC gaming problem and you've lost the only real competitive advantage that consoles have.

>check almost every benchmark out therefore for Borderlands 2, CS:GO, Witcher 2, Bioshock Infinite and almost every other AAA game out there

That's not really a good benchmark, if drivers is the thing you want to compare.

> Hell, you have Steam Machines planned with only Intel HD graphics and also called "Steam Machines" just like the Alienware Alpha and the Syber ones, while power-wise they fall in totally different categories. That's the best way to kill your brand, at least 3DO never did that kind of mistake.

Replace "Steam Machines" with "Andriod" and you could make the exact same arguments. And the thing is people have, and they have been to an extent completely correct. But, I don't think you would say Android hasn't been a very successful bet for Google, despite the fragmentation and huge range of quality for different mobile devices, and the problems with branding they have. What I'm seeing is Valve trying to make the exact same play in the console world, where Microsoft and Sony have it locked down very much the same way Apple did (or was on the way to doing) with the smartphones. They want to break people out of those walled gardens and bring them into their ecosystem, and they're going to provide an open platform for any hardware maker to do it, just like Android did.

Of course mobile phones and consoles are two different industries, it might play out in a similar way or it might play out completely differently. But I think it's a bit premature to write it off as ridiculous or even a bad idea from the start when there is precedent for this sort of strategy working in other industries. It certainly has a chance of playing out well for Valve, branding and fragmentation be damned, as long as it opens up a much larger audience to Steam.

I get the Android comparison, but I don't think it is very much relevant. People don't always get Android phones by choice, and they get a phone ANYWAY because they need a phone.

For consoles, the choice is already very clear out there and the well known brands are Xbox, Nintendo and Sony, period. You can see how nVidia is struggling to establish their Shield brand in the market by the way, as a good indication of how hard it is to enter the market. There is nobody who "needs" Steam Machines out there right now, because they already either have a console, a PC or both if they actually care.

And additionally, Valve is too risk-averse to actually build and sell hardware by themselves (or even take a NEXUS approach like Google), which makes me think they don't even believe in the Steam Machines themselves. We will see.

Actually there are a few people (like myself, my brother and a bunch of our friends) who are waiting to see what the steam machines will be like. We're still using xbox360, wii, laptops etc to game on. Now looking to upgrade sometime this year... we've been waiting for steam machines... but the specs are way too confusing.

I just about understand nvidia cards and the numbering system, but how they interact with i5/i7 and different memory?

(cue 1,000 geeks who will try and educate me)

I just want to buy a box that is better than XBoxOne at the same price. At this rate I think a used XBoxOne off ebay is a better option. Let steam machines bake for a year or so.

The worst thing that can happen for steam machines is when 99 people buy the budget version and 1 person buys the dream machine, the 99 people see the dream machine beat their budget machines and now you've got 99 disappointed customers and 1 happy customer.

This doesn't happen with playstation, wiiU or xbox. Steam machines are going to fail and I'm pretty gutted about that.

> I just want to buy a box that is better than XBoxOne at the same price. At this rate I think a used XBoxOne off ebay is a better option. Let steam machines bake for a year or so.

Honestly the XboxOne has more value, right now, than the Steam Machines in terms of how well games will run on it. But you can say that the Steam Machines may have more games (but not as many that you can play with a joypad - since some PC games require a keyboard anyway). It's not a straightforward comparison, and it depends a lot on what games you want to play in the end. If you want AAA games, right now it looks like the Xbox one is a better option, but maybe that will change later in 2016. Who knows...

> now you've got 99 disappointed customers and 1 happy customer.

Which is precisely why they should have setup minimum specs for their Steam Machines, or at least have a Valve Steam Machine that sets the standard. But Valve did not do that, and I am also concerned they will fail precisely because of that.

>But you can say that the Steam Machines may have more games (but not as many that you can play with a joypad - since some PC games require a keyboard anyway).

Apparently the steam controller is designed to be a suitable replacement for a keyboard/mouse, and will include a system for sharing controller mappings for games over steam.

> Apparently the steam controller is designed to be a suitable replacement for a keyboard/mouse, and will include a system for sharing controller mappings for games over steam.

I have tried the Steam controller (the beta version from a while ago) and it is certainly not as easy to use at they make it look like. It certainly takes a while to get used to it.

It's understandable that it will take a while to get used to (it's a fairly new interface/form factor combination for an input device), a Valve employee on Reddit has confirmed that the steam controller use in the launch video was live action[1] and that the programmer who designed the keyboard interface can type faster than him on a standard keyboard using it.[2]

So it might require practise, but according to this anecdotal evidence, it has the potential (if your dedicated enough) to form a suitable replacement.

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/38jcel/introducing_th...

[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/38jcel/introducing_th...

Honestly why don't they have an easy to understand rating system? Specs do nothing for me, having been out of the PC gaming market for ages since I swapped to Mac. I do have a basic understanding of the CPUs and GPUs but when you combine X with Y and throw in W, what do I have?

Give me a solid number so I can compare machines quickly. How much Steam does my SteamMachine have?

Because this year's "Steam grade 1" will be next year's "Steam grade three".

Even if you include a date - "Steam 2016 grade 1" you're going to need some kind of comparison table to work out if your game ("runs on 'steam 2017 grade 3'") will work on your machine or not.

Invert your categorization direction. (same as SD cards, Class 10 > Class 8...)

Oh, I don't know. They could just take some aggregate standard benchmark, and coerce it down to an integer. Have higher numbers be strictly better. Sure, you might get box makers trying to game it, but it would still be better than "here's some specs, you figure it out".

After a recent review of low-end (well, compared to an i7) AMD apus paired with high-end gpus[1], I'm not even sure most "professionals" can get anything meaningful out of specs alone. Sure an i7 with ddr4 is "better" than a dual-core AMD APU -- but if your target is 1080p gaming, it might not be much of a difference -- given the same GPU.

So it shouldn't be that hard make the statement "runs on Steambox rated 24 or higher" be true for all generations of steamboxes. Even when that'll have to be changed from 24 to 24000.

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/9307/the-kaveri-refresh-godava...

Agreed, plus, Steam is already "fragmented" on it's home turf of desktop PCs:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

And every time I've looked at that list, Intel integrated graphics have been fairly prominent.

Some of the arguments against the steam machines make me feel like I've fallen into some weird "console vs pc" propaganda war, rather than a factual discussion about business strategies.

You might want to vet your list. Witcher 2 is not a native linux game. I cannot comment on the other games.

Does not matter, people who buy "consoles" don't care what is native or not. They just care if their game runs well.

And additionally, Witcher 2 is not really using a wrapper, at least not in the WINE sense of the word. Witcher 2 uses eON which basically does conversion of DirectX calls to OpenGL calls at compile time, not execution time. So it's arguably pretty close to native.

NVIDIA is really pushing though, they are moving up in the Linux developer commit charts [0]. In a few months they might be close enough to parity on the SteamOS (which likely could involve some proprietary code) for it not to matter.

[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/631509/

Yes , Exactly , They have big plans for android and gaming(Shield line).They need excellent linux support for that .

Once the Vulkan drivers are in (and the games written for it) I'd expect Linux to have even better performance than Windows in gaming.

> I have a GTX970 in my Ubuntu machine and it rocks, supports my gsync monitor and everything; trumping console performance is pretty much a no-brainer with modern nvidia maxwell stuff

Yeah, when your graphics cards costs mores than the entire console (Groupon has a deal right now for a $304 Xbox One without Kinect, and the cheapest GTX970 on PCPartpicker is a Zotac at $310.95), that tends to happen.

> Steam Machines don't compete with Windows, they're complementary to existing Windows machines (game streaming)

Sure they do. If anything, they compete against Windows much more than they do against consoles. There are reasons to own both a console and gaming PC. There's no reason to have a Windows gaming PC and a Steam Machine. Windows is a superset of a Steam Machine's gaming capabilities. The main reason for people owning a gaming console along with a gaming PC are the exclusive games, people will buy an entire Xbone for Halo or Destiny. There are no Steam Machine or Linux exclusive games.

> Except that it runs on Linux, which has less performing drivers than on Windows

Thats... not quite true, interestingly enough. Excuse the ZDNet link: http://www.zdnet.com/article/valve-linux-runs-our-games-fast...

That's a clear exception. Even CS:GO from Valve runs slower than the Windows version. All other recent benchmarks keep showing Windows ahead in FPS for the same games running on Linux. And hey, I'm a Linux gamer (almost exclusively these days), and for me this is not a problem, but it's just a fact.

Ubuntu 15.04 vs Windows 8.1 : Team Fortress 2 benchmark with a GTX 680 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7uEv8LTYU

You know that in that video, Windows wins clearly in FPS in high settings right ?

And who cares about benchmarks for games on DirectX 9? Especially since the OpenGL port was made nearly 7 years after the DirectX version was released, and it's possible Valve could have made all sorts of optimizations based on advances in the meantime (either in their understanding of rendering or being able to take advantage of features that are in the newest versions of OpenGL but weren't around in a DirectX 9).

So now we aren't discussing that there are no games for Linux, but about the performance of Linux games. What an odd world we live in.

I think there is still a problem of "not enough developers supporting Linux" - that issue is not completely gone yet, while it has massively improved. The next step is having a stronger adoption from devs + first-citizen kind of performance. But I agree with your sentiment, the improvement has been massive in the past 2 years.

Well ... with the incoming low level apis support on linux should be easier. You need only disk access, network sockets, sound and audio system to make a game. First two are solved problems multiplaform-wise. Remove the drivers from the equations and there is no good reason why porting should take a lot of work.

There are many tools used for Game development that are platform specific and have no Linux version. That's also why some porting efforts are stalled currently.

    What an odd world we live in.

Do you mean that discussing the performance of Linux games is an unfair moving of the goalposts, or that it's odd that Linux caught on enough that we're now discussing the performance of Linux games rather than just their existence?

i've seen some game reviews with the linux version running faster on Ubuntu than Windows

Reply on news.ycombinator.com