While the primary debate over the new generation of game consoles revolves around the PlayStation 4 versus the Xbox One, there are other options.
The most obvious alternative would be the Wii U. Like the Wii, Nintendo is trying to distance themselves from the competition. Personally, I found the Wii to be a promising console. They had a unique control mechanism that made their experience impossible on any other platform. Unfortunately, they never manged to develop a thriving third-party community. The big games all came from Nintendo, which is highly overrated as a developer. I would have also preferred a few more full games rather than just mini-game compilations. The platform ended up as too much of a tech demo.
Going from a one-handed controller, Nintendo has switched to a bulky controller. They have integrated a touch screen into their controller. By comparison, Microsoft already has a touch screen interface in the form of SmartGlass. Sony has also introduced an app that can be used on tablets. Both Nintendo and Sony have already tried allowing touch screen input through their handhelds, and the concept hasn't taken off.
Although having a touch screen on the primary controller is new, the experience can be found elsewhere. I never expected the Wii U to have the same influence as the original Wii. With Nintendo's third party history, I don't expect much in terms of software. I don't expect to buy the console.
There are some Android-based consoles on the market. The games on these devices are designed for the limitations and interface of phones and tablets. There will probably be a few games made to take advantage of the boxes, but I don't expect anything to stand out in comparison to the alternatives.
Valve is also getting involved. They have been developing a new operating system that will be included with new console/computer hybrids. I prefer to compare "Steam Machines" to consoles rather than computers since that is how I would more likely use them.
The idea behind Steam Machines is to have an open platform computer that works well with a controller interface and less overhead than a Windows computer. It's based on Linux and already has quite a bit of software available. Additionally, Valve has been porting all of their games. Simply put, Steam Machines will have far more available at launch than the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One.
Since this is an open platform, I wouldn't be restricted to console release schedules. I could buy a new system (or upgrade) when I want to. I could also decide the specs I want. This is a trade-off since developers can better optimize games for a platform when they know exactly how a system is set up. This means that consoles generally can do a little more with a little less. Since performance is not a priority of mine, that's actually not a significant advantage for a console.
Of course, Steam's appeal is primarily the Steam service. Games purchased can be installed on multiple computers. Anything purchased for a Steam Machine could be installed on my computer.Valve has also established cloud services that should allow me to go between a Steam Machine and my computer without losing progress (only for games that support cloud saves).
Unfortunately, most of the games I have purchased through Steam over the years do not have Linux versions. There are still two options to address these problems. One is streaming. I could have a game playing on my PC streamed to the Steam Machine. I could also install Wine and play some Windows games locally. I'm pretty sure disc-based verification wouldn't work well if I bought a system without an optical drive, which would cause some problems. In fact, this would make it tempting to repurchase some games.
Since we are looking at digital distribution, I should probably look at how this compares to disc-based games typical of consoles. I view it as a trade-off. I have usually preferred to have a physical copy. Since I have lost some discs over the years, I have eased up a great deal on digital distribution.
It can take longer to install from the internet and using Steam relies on Valve maintaining the service. This is especially important to realize if I buy a new computer or if I uninstall a game I want to revisit in the future to free up space. If Valve falters, they could always sell the service. It's still a risk, but not necessarily worse than the risk of damaged or lost discs.
Another thing that I have been looking at is backwards compatibility/legacy software. Although neither Sony nor Microsoft have dismissed the possibility of adding backwards compatibility to their consoles, neither one has it at this time. This is actually kind of shocking since there was a longer gap between generations. It should have been easier to implement than in the past. Legacy software for computers can be kind of tricky. General compatibility is usually retained, but not maintained. Old programs frequently have problems. I don't think that Linux sees the same kind of overhauls that you see with Windows, so compatibility with legacy software might be better with Steam Machines than with Windows.
Since I already have a Steam account, I know what the primary appeal is. Steam has some incredible sales. I never pay full price for a game, and most purchases of mine are less than ten dollars. While Steam Machines are more expensive than similar consoles (they can't subsidize third-party manufacturers through their software sales), the sales should make up the difference.
I should point out that there has been a discussion about whether or not Steam Machines are worth it since you can always build your own computers for less. I actually have two problems with these comments. The first is that you can always build your own Steam Machines. The other is that low-end models do not provide the savings portrayed. PC manufacturers get discounts on components because they buy in bulk. A quick price check (I will admit that I wasn't researching the lowest prices) put the components of one of the $500 machines easily above $500.
There's another point that I have to look at, the controller. I don't know how well the Steam controller will work for me, especially since I have never held one in my hands. Part of the design was to enable keyboard/mouse games to be played with the controller. This could really help with my games that do not generally play well in that format, but I don't know how much it would help. I also don't know how well it would work for more standard controller-based games. I have an Xbox 360, so I could always use that controller if I had to.
None of these points answers a simple question, will I buy a Steam Machine? Personally, I feel that Valve is contributing more to the industry right now than Sony and Microsoft combined. The advantages of consoles are being offset by the advantages of the Steam Machine. Overall, Steam Machines appear to have more value. I certainly won't pay $100 for the PlayStation 4, and I won't pay $500 for the Xbox One and Kinect. Since performance isn't nearly as important to me as core functionality, I would probably be looking at a $500 Steam Machine. Would I spend that much? There's still time for more information to come out, but I am currently thinking yes. Odds are in favor of me owning a Steam Machine by the end of the year.
Previous: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 IV
No comments:
Post a Comment