Windows Are we seeing the death of Windows for PC gaming?

There is a reason console has more attention, more marketing and more first release on a new title. Money.

Just look at Rockstar 1Billion Dollars in three days. THREE DAYS yes that does include pre orders. And is a world wide figure. But no movie/game/musician has ever done that.

With a unification of platforms from AMD then PC gaming can only get better.

The one prime issue will be thus, lazy devs porting console games without bothered to configure keyboard and mouse options. Limiting the video quality by not putting in any kind of settings for graphics etc

I have seen this time and time again, and it does become quite irritating.

 

Thanks Jaybles, very informative !

The last time I installed Linux I got a free game of Pacman when it was installing. That would have been around 1998/1999 haha not touched it since

 

I had a second long rantish post going into greater detail, but the end conclusion i came to is that everything depends on the performance/price point the steambox turns up at, 3rd party development and whether it offers significant performance increases over the same running on windows.

personally, i might get one to replace consoles IF it's cheaper than a decent GPU for my HTPC would be, it gets good 3rd party support (better than the wii/wiiU as a benchmark*), any platform exclusives i'm interested in are released for it (currently only GTA5), and i can use existing 360 or ps3 controllers if i don't like the steam one (mostly a comfort issue). Because there are some games (driving, fighting and fifa for the most part) that i prefer with a controller on a TV. But it's got to offer me something to make me jump from my current setup, which offers everything i want.



*and not just in terms of number of parties developing for it, or porting their games over. I mean support where they look at the difference in the controller input and change the games functions/features based on how it'll be interacted with in a meaningful way. crazy i know.


tl;dr again. Still No.

 

If the developers would implement native USB keyboard+mouse support into their console-games (like UT3, Dust514) then we wouldn't even need anything else then a Playstation or Xbox for most of our gaming.

Only the stupidity of the developers not implementing keyboard+mouse on the consoles leaves room for stuff like the SteamBox.

 

That and console games costing on average £10 more, being more difficult to patch, free mods, no monthly subscriptions, unofficial patches, abandonware.

But as others have said it comes down to price, if all we get are the over priced $999 Xi3 Piston Steam Machines no one will buy them. It needs for an OEM to come out with a machine that compares favorably with nxt gen consoles.

 

This is true, and my main issue with console gaming (which i prefer for specific types of games).

But the steambox could result in devs developing exclusively for controllers with the argument that controllers are seeing growth as an input peripheral for PC gaming. that way they can re-map the buttons and analogue axis and not have to bother with anything else. It could certainly lead to lazier ports where the argument of growth in PC controller use means there's really no need for them to add KB+M controls, a worse version of what Dom mentioned above.

 

It's downright odd that Microsoft via the stagnating DirectX/Windows model has had so much control over the PC gaming market for so long. AMD and Valve seem like they are in an ideal position to finally takeover given Microsoft's broader current focus/issues.

 

it's not that odd. MS spend a fortune on marketing to keep windows where it is despite few other challengers for the title of 'most widespread desktop OS'. as the largest platform, that's what devs/publishers have targeted, and due to the non-gaming uses of windows, i don't see SteamOS or the steambox making a difference to that.

they went half-assed with directx and so on because if it proved really popular it could've impacted xbox sales, and console gaming was (probably still is) an area of much bigger growth.

I've no doubt Valve/AMD could see success among the current gaming demographic, but only by further fragmenting the existing PC gaming market, which makes it a less enticing prospect to develop/publish for. That could hurt PC gaming more than help it.

Unless their plan is to convert the whole PC market (not just gaming) over to use SteamOS as it does have non-games that presumably are all going to work in linux too like the full steam catalogue (smells of emulation to me though, or whatever it is wine is, a re-implementation of the windows API/DLLs?). If that's their goal, and it would be the goal most likely to work and take PC gaming forward in a positive way, then they need to quickly drop the gaming focus and concentrate on enterprise, business and normal home users on-board to get the market share, and they need to be doing things at least as well as MS in the non-gaming categories. However it appears they're hoping canonical will do that with ubuntu and they can handle the gaming side of it and we're back to linux not being able to make it as a desktop OS due to lack of exposure/marketing.

 

Steam OS is a nice thing but without proper hardware its DOA. In a way mantle has similar issues at least in PC gaming, If the API is not took on by Nvidia ( no idea if its open source ) then 60-70% of the total gaming pcs ( Steam latest survey put it at 30% for AMD 40% nvidia 30% Intel IGPU ) will not be able to use the API anyway. Means it will not be coded for correctly. Not everyone has DICE budget to do the work after the release of the game.

If linux or Steam OS or any other OS but windows is going to succeed it needs to gain more than the current hardcore following and fans it has. It needs to attract the casual gamer to a dieing platform. ( Pc desktop sales continue to tank worldwide and show no signs of slowing)

If Valve can convince the people it sells games for on steam to make a linux version for its Steam OS then you never know what might happen. We know so little about Steam OS though that most of those devs would need more than Valves word on the matter.

Theres only 3 big publishers left in gaming now. 2K , Activision and EA. Steam OS needs to gain the support of at least 1 of those 3 for its platform to succeed and im not talking about ports 3-4months later, Im talking about games on launch at the same time.

 

The stats that show a decline in desktop PC sales says more about the major OEM's (Dell, HP, Lenovo) than any decline in actual desktop PC's. Steam has been showing year on year growth, and the GPU market increased %4.6 in Q2 2013

Yea the success or failure of it all (SteamOS, Steam Machine) depends very much on the developers making Linux versions, but i wouldn't put it past Valve to incentivise dev's in some way. Other than knowing SteamOS is based on Linux what else do Dev's need to know ?

Is it really the publisher that dictate what platform a game is released on ? isnt it the developers that propose it to the publisher, if they make a strong case to make profit wont the publisher give them the go ahead ?

 

I disagree. Although unification is required, it is only required for the people that cannot use technology in the same way we can. If there were two or three choices, each of which was clearly different to each other and had advantages/disadvantages (like Ubuntu for a pretty desktop and Red Hat for the support), then it would make it easy for those people to choose the one they want.

However, those other distributions, the ones that only really cater to the people who know their way around a computer, should still live on. Yes, they will only ever be a niche, but there are people who would prefer to use one of those distributions compared to the more mainstream ones. Distros like Arch, Gentoo, Mandriva, and to a certain extent even Debian will continue to be revered by those who want real control over their computer. Giving someone the root console of the Arch Linux live CD will confuse most people - but to some it opens so many opportunities they won't ever change back.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...r-a-gamepad-revolution-our-thumbs-wont-accept

Extreme-tech have already trashed and dismissed the valve controller because basically your thumbs are crap.

I have mixed feelings about it all. I detest console controllers but I see the advantage they have of not needing desk space. I am totally against the idea of using joysticks to control view. I wouldn't use my saitek HOTAS to control view in an FPS and I wouldn't use thumb-sticks either. I think the valve controller might prove slightly better because your thumb basically becomes the mouse. We're used to making small thumb movements with mouse. For the track pads the thumb movements will be slightly bigger but not enormously so.

I should be the last person to say anything positive about any console controller but I am actually not going to pre-judge this one.

 

It needs a lot of guts from some big name publishers/developers to make Linux a success for gaming. Drivers, support, etc, that sort of stuff will follow along if the popularity is there.

Valve are probably the only ones in the position to take that gamble, and it's win-win for them. Steam Machines are a flop? Their games are cross-platform anyway, so they'll still make money from Windows/Mac users. Steam Machines are an enormous success? More people spending more money in Steam.

So long as they keep supporting those who made them big in the first place. I don't mind using controllers for many games, but when I really want some precision you're going to have to tear my keyboard & mouse from my cold dead fingers. And the reason I sold my Xbox 360 is that I can't slap a new GPU/CPU in it. They're making the right noises at the moment but ultimately this isn't an altruistic move: they are in this for the money, make no mistake about that.

Sorry, I'm going to derail things again slightly...

The reason Windows is so popular is because of MS Office. Why is MS Office so popular? Because the vast majority of very large companies with very large buying power use it, and have used it for a long time. They got their foot in the door early with big business and it sure as hell paid off; everyone uses MS software because it's what they've always used when they want to Get Some Real Work Done.