I guess PC gaming IS dying

What about slapping SteamOS on a super-cheap HTPC that you already have and using the in-home streaming feature to beam your entire library of Windows Steam games from your powerful gaming notebook or desktop to your TV? A "Steam Machine" is just any PC that's running SteamOS; it doesn't have to be powerful enough to run games locally. As long as you are streaming over gigabit Ethernet or 802.11ac WiFi, latency should be a non-issue, as Nvidia Shield has already proven it's the software implementation that matters.

Also, that $500 Steam Machine from iBuyPower is at price-to-performance parity with DIY boxes, with the added benefit that it's smaller and probably quieter than DIY mini-ITX systems due to the custom chassis and cooling design, kinda like the Valve prototype Steam Machine that they've already sent out.

And lastly, don't underestimate the Linux games catalog on Steam. The number of Mac and Linux games on Steam have ramped up in recent years and this could be just the kick-in-the-pants that Valve needs to get more third-party developers to port over their existing and future games to Linux. If this really takes off, who knows, maybe in a few years every AAA game released on Steam will fall under the Steam Play umbrella and enjoy cross-platform access on Windows, Linux, and Mac.

I for one definitely see some of the appeal in Steam Machines. Being able to kick back on the couch with friends and family and a couple of Steam Controllers while enjoying access to a cheaper, higher-quality, and much more vast library of games compared to consoles is very appealing. Coupled with the fact that pre-built Steam Machines will come in a variety of price points and configurations, costing as little as the next-gen consoles do even with superior hardware, and are no less cost-effective than self-built machines, it all seems like a win-win for console gamers who may want to break into PC gaming but have been unable to do until now due to the barriers to entry.

 

Or you could be smart and build a mini-ITX desktop, use whatever controller you like, and chill on the sofa with a way bigger library of windows games....
Or if you just got to have SteamOS, just install it on that mini-ITX desktop instead of windows. Or make a dual OS build.

There is nothing revolutionary with SteamMachine. Its a computer with Linux and have a controller made by Valve. I`m pretty sure that the controller will get emulated support for PCs really quick after launch.

I support Valve`s push for Linux development but they have a looong way ahead of them

Yeah, the OEMs will assembly a machine for the customers for free. They have magical unicorns working at the factory and they are all fueled by the love of the customers.

Here is how the entrance to one of the factories look like


Building your own desktop have and will always be the cheapest option. But keep on dreaming.

 

Steam Machines aren't targeted toward the PC gaming master race who can build its own rigs; they're targeted toward console peasants who want to get into PC gaming for the first time.

 

Maybe the low end machines built by the OEMs, but not the high end models since they feature hardware with a steep price tag[/URL]

Much more fun to build your own rig in my opinion.I`ve seen the tear down of the model that is being beta tested now. Basically regular desktop parts cramped together in a tiny space to make it more console-ish. Nothing they have designed themselves.

 

The Valve prototype Steam Machine? It uses off-the-shelf components but the enclosure is a custom one and quite clever I might add. That's why it's so compact yet reasonably well-cooled by the looks of it due to the heat-generating components being walled off from each other by the plastic inner frames and expelling hot air out of different sides of the chassis.

 

I know that it would defeat the whole purpose of it but I wouldn't mind seeing a laptop with the steamos. If anything it would be to just see what a laptop sponsored by valve would look like.

 

Here is the components they use


Here is the exact hardware they use
Intel Core i5-4570, Zotac GeForce GTX 780, Silverstone ML04B - Steam Machine - green47's Saved Part List - PCPartPicker

Here is the teardown. Looks regular to me. Perhaps a few extra vent holes here and there.
Steam Machine Teardown - iFixit

 

I'm referring to this:

 

A neat way to isolate different hardware in its own room, I give them that. But looking at that cable management and that tight chassis, its sort of required.

There are efficient ways to cool off a desktop too you know.

Anyhow, enough of this discussion. I do hope they succeed on the market, but the lacky Linux game support will haunt them unless they plan to throw a crapload of money on creating support for their OS. I guess everyone have to start somewhere.

 

Yeah, you're not going to get a SteamBox for $500 with a 780... sorry.

I would be perfectly fine if they used this as a launch platform for Half-Life 3, and I don't see why not.

SteamOS is compatible with any x86/x64 system, so I'd be willing to dual boot for the sake of HL3.

And to be honest, I don't see how this is any different from the other game consoles. XBone, PS4, Wii U all have a proprietary OS, and even hardware for the most part. This is really just "another" console box IMHO. Tons of unique titles that will only run on it, with the option to play regular PC titles, and likely many AAA titles in the future. If anyone can pull it off, it's Valve. If Mantle is thrown into the fray, and it pans out as well as AMD is claiming, then it could be a massive success, not requiring top end hardware to play AAA games at 1080p/60, with a free OS to boot!

 

R9 270 is faster than 8970M, so close enough.

 

I meant desktop 780... so not close enough.

 

A 780 is $500 by itself, so of course it's not gonna show up in a $500 Steam Machine. They're just regular PC's running off-the-shelf components anyway, not something made from fairy dust and unicorn horns that's exempt from the normal pricing rules.

 

wiht respect to the original post, i actually never went into console gaming because i didnt want to look like a kid. lol

 

That makes zero sense...

 

I'm wondering the same thing. Is everyone's troll-detector deactivated?

 

The title was a bit sarcastic, but it isn't a troll. It's honest to goodness question. Games that could easily be ported and run on PC are being opted for alternate platforms, is all the point I was trying to make. Even the most basic of game sequels that made their original debut on the PC are avoiding it. The only troll I smell here are the ones not offering substance to the topic. /ahem/

 

Some lesser-known games which people may or may not care about not getting released on PC =/= PC gaming is dying. I have no idea how you jumped from here to there. I have yet to see you actually qualify the sensationalist thread title you made. Referencing some casual games like Plants vs. Zombies and Peggle doesn't count. Everyone knows that the whole "PC gaming is dead" bent is a straw man argument. That's why this thread smells like a troll.

 

Because that implies releasing game on PC don't make money. People don't work and make game for charity sake.

 

GTA V makes $1 billion in three days, may be fastest selling entertainment product in history

 

No the point is that if they won't even make a very popular game that would be easy to port to PC, no billion dollar 3D engine required, why invest in the bigger titles? While I agree they are more suited towards tablets and handheld devices, it's pretty sad when what would be guaranteed increase in sales isn't even worth their bother on the largest gaming hardware platform on the planet.

Exactly.

I've been a gamer probably longer than most people here (since about 1980). Primarly PC gaming the whole time. Have seen the proclamations that "PC gaming is dead", and every time have called shenanigans. Now the way people use technology, with tablets and smartphones and other handhelds, PC's aren't looked at as much as gaming machines as they had for the last 30 years. Consoles are cheap and easy to use, just their input is inferior to PC gaming, which is the primary difference. I refuse to play games with a controller if I have the option for keyboard and mouse.

I, more than anyone, would not like to see PC gaming slip away into a coma. Maybe it won't, but with Microsoft and their codger old stubborn ways, who make the primary OS platform for PC's on the planet, it isn't helping either. Direct3D has been the primary API for games for 20 years too, yet that is losing steam (pun intended) as well. Gaming, and even if SteamOS takes off, may very well work OK on traditional PC's, but their push is for a console like experience as well, using a handheld controller.

I used to be a heavy sim guy, investing thousands of hours between the original Operation Flashpoint games, the whole Jane's / EA like of sims like F-15, Longbow 1 & 2, F/A-18 Super Hornet, etc and others like Comache-Hokum, and even built a home cockpit with a projector for a screen with multiple monitors. I miss those days, and have slim pickings these days, and am afraid we will have little to look forward to in the future as well. I don't have the time to invest in it like I used to, but I'm sure in the next 5-10 years I'll like to get back into it when I won't be investing so much time in my kids. The whole point being that I love PC gaming, I want it to thrive, but over the years I have seen the trend diminish PC as a platform, to the point where I feel it will eventually become nothing more than a geek's hobby again.

 

I understand the frustration as sim guy.

As for the StreamOS controller, keyboard and mouse are still supported so I don't see a problem.

 

I got GTA V for xbox on christmas and I am really surprised how well it looks on the console, like I never thought that I would actually think that the game looks good for what it is. With that said, I beat about 15% of the game and stopped... I'd rather just wait for the superior pc release and not have to replay the entire game all over again.

 

I tried to play GTA V at a friends house on a PS3. PC gaming spoiled me. The low FPS, framedrops, horrible textures and, worst of all, NO AA where a huge torture for my eyes. Couldn't play the game for more than five minutes (that includes horrible long loading times).

 

You must hate Minecraft then.

 

I do (although that's not because of the graphics).

 

LOL. So true. I know people that *HAVE* to run at highest resolution and detail at 60FPS, yet delve hundreds of hours in Minecraft... lulz.

 

Well, they can always install some mods (on PC).






Those true miners will be fine with the good old style.

 

Whoa, what mod is that? I haven't seen that. My kids would LOVE that.

 

I'm sure part of the mod is Sonic Ethers lighting mod. It looks like bump mapping textures too.
Those wet stone light reflections look fantastic.
Any links ?

 

I think that is Sleeping Dogs, not GTA - but I may be wrong.

 

LOL I'm playing it right now and those are my thoughts exactly. Looks just like a scene out of Sleeping Dogs but slightly Minecraftized.

 

The shader mod is Sonic Ether's Unbelievable Shaders.

The first screenshot uses LB Photo Realism Texture Pack. Not sure about the second one.

Edit: Found it. It's MrShortee's BladeCraft.

If the second was Sleeping Dogs, the third must be a very interesting Sleeping Dogs mod.

 

I shamefully admit that I prefer a PS3 controller to a mouse and keyboard...
I remember playing NFS 3 and Midtown Madness 2 (I love racing games) on a Pentium (Or maybe it was a Celeron? Don't remember.) Dell desktop nearly a decade ago. Oh, the fun I had with mods...
I missed them when I got a PS2 in 2006. And a PS3 in 2010. That's something the consoles will never have, and I think it's one of the main reasons why the PC gaming community is so much more developed.
You can't change a Fiat into a Saleen S7 on a PS3.
Of course NFS has really started to suck now, but Criterion did okay with Rivals.
My GTX 760M walks all over a PS3, I'm just waiting to see it up against a PS4 (from the looks of it though, the PS4 isn't gonna stand a chance).

 

wat?

 

Still waiting. Ain't sure yet. My friend is getting a PS4 very soon so I'll compare it to that.
Could somebody give me the specs on the PS4 GPU? I've looked online, but I haven't found anything very clear...

 

you cant really compare, anyway the HD7850 of the PS4 is more powerful than a GTX 770M OC..

 

PlayStation 4 technical specifications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

760M don't stand a chance.

 

PS4 GPU is 1152 cores (18 CU's) AMD GCN GPU with 1.84 TFLOPS single-precision, between desktop 7850 and 7870 and slightly slower than 7970M: Comparison of AMD graphics processing units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GTX 760M is 1 TFLOP, about as fast as 7870M, so really not even close.

 

Update: the texture pack was MrShortee's BladeCraft.

 

All this comparison PC video card X is better than PS4/XBone is futile. You can't do it. It's like comparing only the horsepower between two cars and saying one is faster than the other. Just like you can see one card "destroy" another in synthetic benchmarks, but in reality there's not a lot of difference in performance. Not to mention the API and general programming efficiency. CPU power too, the anemic AMD chips still lack in raw performance as well which could be a deciding factor depending on the game. We've already seen how much AMD's flagship A10 APU in the MSI laptops when coupled with their flagship GPU (i.e. 7970m/8970m) are crippled compared with a powerful Intel CPU with same GPU.

 

"API and general programming efficiency" is always on the console's side.

Unlike what we are used to on PCs, drawing calls on the PS are well multi-threaded‎, so more cores (8 on the PS4) does mean more performance. The overhead is also way smaller. Given those advantages, the PS4 is actually less likely to hit CPU bottleneck than typical gaming notebooks with similar GPU throughput.


A higher number of relatively weak CPU cores does make it more challenging though, but not for graphics.

 

You have to remember those cores also have to be used for AI, dynamic environment, and any other non GPU related computations. It's fine and dandy if you throw a pure graphics load on it, but throw in additional load for what you need in a "real" game and it can and will cause performance issues. I agree consoles will be more efficient overall, but that can only make up so much over the lack of CPU horsepower, and probably why there will likely be more 720p games than 1080p.

Performance of the MSI GX60 with A10-5750m/7970m was basically half that of a similarly equipped machine with Intel i7-3720QM/7970m at lower resolutions. Even at higher resolutions the Intel variant was ahead 50-80%, and the AMD part was barely over 30FPS.

 

Minecraft sucks (imho), but not because of the graphics.

 

I'm not a big gamer in general, but I've never seen the argument for any platform "dying"; they've always catered to different people.

 

How about we add a bit of creativity, supported by physics.

Voxel Farm: Voxel Physics

 

I like my PC and consoles equally.

 

I know it's very difficult to compare them, but would there be any areas where the GTX 760M coupled with an i7 4702MQ (yes, that's a GE40) would outshine a PS4's AMD APU in practice? I know the PS4 has more TF and more cores and all that (I've looked into it), but in practice, how would the performance compare with the aforementioned GPU and CPU? How much better would it really be in antialiasing, reducing framedrops, micro-stuttering (which is usually minimal on consoles) and producing 3D images?
For example, if I'm playing a not-super-demanding-game like NFS Rivals, how big would the difference be? I imagine it would have higher framerates and less micro-stutter on the PS4, but anything else?
And a side-note, if we were to place the PS4's GPU somewhere in the non-mobile GT and GTX (or AMD 7--- and 8---) range, where would it be?

 

Dying as in drastically reduced number of quality titles released for it. Sure 8-bit computing with the Atari 2600 caters to some people, but it's dead, there's nothing new out for it. Sure things evolve, and categories merge, but it sure as heck isn't the same as it was 15 years ago for PC gaming. I used to run a website dedicated to combat flight simulators for the PC in late 1990's through early 2000's and I couldn't keep up with all the new decent titles released as far as reviewing, modding, tweaking guides, etc. Now there's nothing, notta, zippo.

What is a PC? I think we'd have different responses to that, but traditionally, PC is a machine that encompasses a set of hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, Storage, Motherboard) and OS with primary input using a physical keyboard and mouse, and is capable of creating content without compromising input or performance. Desktop PC's are very limited in use now than they used to be, laptops have really taken them out of the equation, and now for a large number of those people, tablets and smartphones are enough to manage their computing needs. Heck even where I work our CAD designers use laptops, and they're even considering giving us laymen engineers tablets which is a day I dread...

And if games are being made primarily for tablets, smartphones, and consoles, then yes PC gaming is dying. It's lost the battle. If there is not enough incentive to develop for it, then it has lost. I don't think PC gaming will die altogether, there's too many PC's in the wild to do that. But as a primary platform, we already see a large number of horrible ports coming to PC.

 

Nice double post. :laugh:

As for your question, the PS4 is undoubtedly faster than your laptop. Even ignoring the hardware advantage, consoles always punch above their weight in comparable PC hardware due to the removal of that driver/API overhead which currently robs PC's of so much performance. And of course with a fixed hardware platform developers can optimize to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of the consoles.

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison between PC and console hardware. Which is why I gotta laugh every time the MSI GX60/70 is brought up in a PC vs. console debate in an attempt to quantify, in vain, the mistaken assumption that the CPU's in the consoles will somehow cripple their performance. The reservations people here seem to be having about the consoles' CPU performance in PC terms is simply irrelevant.