Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Install your own apps, or even another operating system. Who are we to tell you how to use your computer?

I'm so happy to read this



Valve respects its customers. It is so insane that this isn't a norm; what a world we would be in if all companies did so.


Gabe is literally practising Noblesse Oblige, which is really funny but really shows that our billionare society is really just a reduction to old aristocracy. He's just the good Duke, whereas most Dukes are horrible, horrible people.


Noblesse oblige exists because of a moral economy. You can be a horrible Duke, because there's no real reward for being the good one.

This is not that - Steam has to compete on the free market, there is a reward for making the product everyone else refuses to make. In a post-Deck world, it's hard to believe that moral obligation plays a bigger role than the overall hatred of Windows for seamless gaming experiences.


Well the complements of steam are the OS and hardware. So commoditizing them increases sales.

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

"A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants."


> Noblesse oblige exists because

... the plebs know what is good for them. Horrible Dukes get horses wanting nails.


>He's just the good Duke

The Gaben house is building a secret army, using a technique unknown to us; a technique involving steam.


Gamers are a passionate bunch. Screwing around with them is a losing game that no one has historically ever won. And also because a lot of their competitors fucked up to pave the road for them (Think Sony's PS fiasco, Microsoft's X-Box clusterfuck from which they're yet to recover from, a decade later). Valve has gotten alot of billion dollar lessons in here that Valve got for free.


> Screwing around with them is a losing game that no one has historically ever won.

What universe do you live in?

- Broken games still pre-ordered

- marginal updates sold at full price

- double/triple-dipping with microtransactions and battle passes

- DRM still [predominant and still hurts performance

- every publisher with more than one game has their own launcher (usually shitty and brings no value)

- rootkit as anti-cheat

- offline game that require online connectivety

- online services get shutdown

- LAN multiplayer is a thing of a past

What did games exactly won?

- Paid skyrim mods? It's back.

- MS game sharing thing that rendered GameStop business model useless? IMO a mistake, MS was onto something there.


> every publisher with more than one game has their own launcher (usually shitty and brings no value)

I view this as a positive -- it's not feasible to maintain a build for every game and storefront's DRM/auth (unless you go DRM-free, which is the ideal but not something publishers and developers do on release). A launcher is the layer that sits between -- the games are written to auth against a launcher, and the launcher has builds for each storefront.

Otherwise you're just further entrenching Steam as the de facto monopoly on sales.


My problem with launchers other than steam and galaxy from GOG: usually shitty and brings no value.

Paradox launcher is alright for example, it adds value in form of mod preset managment and ability to launch straight into saved game.

What ever is in dune: awakening" exists just to tell me about their other games and as a result make game launching longer than it needs to be. Not only that it adds A LOT of friction when I launch it via Remote Play with a controller.

Point is: if you make a launcher make sure it adds any value and not just an advertisementr billboard.

As for store fronts: steam by far has the most functionality among PC storefronts.


> - Broken games still pre-ordered

Only because new population enters the market.

I pre-ordered a game once. F1 2010. Since then, I have *never* pre-ordered anything.

I also opted out from any game that required a rootkit to play.

LAN gameplay is still a thing in the simracing world.

Again, this only continues because of new players. Any burned player will not fall for the same trick twice.


> Only because new population enters the market.

Yeah, not. I'm not saying is the same people pre-order the same games, but there is not THAT much new population influx.

> LAN gameplay is still a thing in the simracing world.

It's a niche within a niche. Also, I remember a guy named Max had a lot to say about the current state of sim-racing.


> . Screwing around with them is a losing game that no one has historically ever won

DRM is everywhere so gamers have clearly lost


The PlayStation seems pretty successful, not sure what "PS fiasco" you're referring to. The stock price is doing fine, at any rate


Possibly the ps3? They did eventually recover but the early years were rough


We live in the live service microtransaction era. Gamers have proven as resolute as wet tissue.


Don't sugarcoat it. Valve has to make sure this is advertised as a PC to keep the licensing good on the games you've bought and that they are allowed to sell. Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony have closed ecosystems with their consoles. Well, Microsoft seems to be throwing in the towel on consoles.


> keep the licensing good

That’s an imaginary issue.


Didn't Xbox pivot to be an entertainment system a couple generations ago and flop compared to PlayStation?


It probably didn't help that they removed all of those features over time.


You mean compared to the PS3, one of the strong points of which was also having a Blu-Ray drive ?


I know a lot of folk (myself included) who pretty much only bought the PS3 because of the Blu-Ray drive.

I wasn't an early adopter and only bought a PS3 in 2010. In the intervening 15 years I have bought four Blu-Rays, and been given two more.

I own (and watch) more VHS tapes than Blu-Rays.

I sure did play a lot of GTA4, GTA5, Infamous, and Little Big Planet though.


This was the Xbone/PS4 generation.

The Blu-Ray drive is basically no added cost since the games were already distributed on optical disks, it’s like how the PS2 was one of the most popular DVD players. The problem with the Xbone was that, at least judging on their marketing at the time, Microsoft was far more focused on broadening the scope of the device beyond games while Sony stayed focused on gaming. That’s why I bought a PS4 despite previously using an Xbox 360.


Xbox One/PS4 is when both sides standardized on BluRay.

When Xbox360 and PS3 came out, the format war was only just starting, and the consoles were on either side of it.

PS3 came with a BluRay drive and the games were delivered on BluRay.

Xbox360 came with software support for HDDVD, but the actual disk reader hardware was a DVD reader (famously, a large off-the-shelf part selected at the last minute that required a redesign of the cooling system to accomodate its size), and the HDDVD drive was an optional add-on that nobody bought.

The fact that every PS3 could read BluRay, but you needed a special extra to play HDDVD on Xbox 360 is arguably the main reason BluRay won the format war.


Which is probably why Microsoft decided to focus so much on media features for the Xbone. What they should have considered was that they had won the Xbox 360 generation by being a better game platform; it should really be no skin off Microsoft’s back that Blu-Ray won the format war.


> it’s like how the PS2 was one of the most popular DVD players

I worked for a Sony dealer when the PS2 launched, and they wouldn't give us one :-/

What I thought at the time was insane was that they were still selling a 200-disc carousel CD changer, and DVD version of the same thing (same box, different shade of silver grey, different drive mechanism, two chips different on the PCB) - but they had no plans to sell a 200-disc carousel PS2.

Imagine if you could have had all your movies, audio CDs, PSX, and shiny new PS2 games in one big box, tucked away out of sight, with your spiffy new 576p projector and 5.1 speakers hooked up to it!


> Well, Microsoft seems to be throwing in the towel on consoles.

Can you expand on this? I'm not a massive gamer, I thought xbox was doing well?


>I thought xbox was doing well?

Microsoft lost the console wars. Their new generation (Series S & X) sold almost 1/4 of what PS5 did because they basically don't have any exclusive game that you can only play in their hardware. Microsoft invested heavily in their Gamepass subscription (that has more than 35 million users) and they believe that the future is on PC. The newest xbox hardware, a handheld made by Asus, is a PC running windows. The next generation of xbox hardware that will compete with the PS6 will also very likely be a PC. The xbox console is dead.


“I already have an Xbox One from 2013, why would I buy an extra X or S version?”

“Oh, there’s a PlayStation 5 now? Man I gotta upgrade from my PS4!”

Microsoft evidently did not learn from the Wii U.


Microsoft’s naming scheme has to be one of the biggest self-goals in console gaming. Number go up.


Back in the 1980s you got your Mom to buy you a game console and you would have needed a logical naming scheme so she would know an PS 3 was better than a PS 2.

XBOX cultivates a "gamer" who is heavily invested in the identity and is well educated in the various versions of XBOX and how the naming scheme works and since they are an adult buying the console for themselves they don't need to explain it to outsiders.


sure i guess if you only want money from adults born in the 80s maybe it seems like an okay idea. abandon the market of humans born after the year 2000, should be fine.


There are always first timers. How you treat your newbies says a lot about your respect for your customer.

If your marketing makes it hard to figure out what is what, well a Playstation $int[max] it is...


That still proves my point.


the Series is one of the worst naming decisions in history. To this day I find myself mixing up the One X, One S, Series X, and Series S.


Even before they muddied things with reusing the S and X names for completely different things, "Xbox One" was bad enough

I worked at a pawn shop when that console generation kicked off. One day a guy called in and asked if he could bring in his Xbox One. "Of course," I told him, until I had to turn him away because it was an original Xbox.


In theory you can run all your GamesPass games on a Steam Machine in the same way you can run arbitrary games through Proton, which is what Steam is doing.

What a wild world it would be, if Microsoft release a GamesPass client for linux so it can try and get a slice of all this new linux gaming happening on SteamOS.


In theory you can, in practice Game Pass games are distributed in such a way only Windows can run them. You can use Game Pass Streaming which is fine when at home, and entirely useless when on a train using a Steam Deck.

The ideal would be MS just selling Game Pass subscriptions via Steam but I expect we'll see that happen shortly after hell freezes over.


They can just add an API and let the folks from the Heroic Launcher do the rest.


I feel like everyone lost the "console wars". Sony is not doing much better considering almost all of their former exclusives are on steam these days. Those next-gen Xboxes will have access to those sony games at discount pricing.


> Sony is not doing much better considering almost all of their former exclusives are on steam these days.

I still can't wrap my head around why they decided to do this considering they were in a pretty killer position coming out of the PS4 generation. I mean, it's probably a positive for consumers to have more options for platforms, so I won't exactly complain. But I do want PlayStation to stick around as a strong competitor because fierce competition is best for consumers in the long-term.

At first it seemed like they were just porting the previous game in a series when the sequel came out exclusively on PS5, as a way to get people into the series and then making them buy their console to play the next game. But now it seems like there's barely any wait between when one of Sony's exclusives comes to PS5 and the PC launch afterwards. If Sony is confused as to why the PS5 isn't selling up to expectations, the answer to that seems pretty obvious to me.


Also they state that the console will remain the centerpiece, they want to make Xbox a "platform" to reuse their own term. It becomes an ecosystem rather than a hardware product. They idea is that as long as you have a gamepass, you can play on whatever you want - except macOS and Linux...


> They idea is that as long as you have a gamepass

Didn't they just blow the remaining goodwill they had by increasing the gamepads price by 50% overnight?


I think they think that's converted by streaming unfortunately.


You can play gamepass on mac and linux via cloud streaming.


Halo was announced for PS5 recently


> I thought xbox was doing well?

It very much isn’t.


If only they had a game company like Bethesda or Actision. /S


This could be restated as: open systems mean you don't need a tangled web of partnerships to provide content, and Valve is taking advantage of this.


But it is also a PC, so I don't see the issue even if this were true. It's just a box running an Arch Linux flavour.


>> Valve respects its customers.

That's the same Valve that doesn't let me play the games I paid it for unless they are running on its platform? That's how it "respects" me?


To be fair there are a lot of games on Steam that don't have DRM, which means you can just drag them out of the steamapps folder to a computer that doesn't have Steam and they work fine. The decision to add DRM comes from the developer/publisher, not Valve.


Name a game distribution platform that doesn't do this. It will be a toy example like a zip file purchased off of itch.io or something.


GOG is hardly a toy and is the platform I look to purchase tons of games on instead of Steam (which I really like) and definitely over Epic (which I've never even installed)


Right. I have to be signed in to GOG to play Cyberpunk. That violates the spirit of the original commenter


You can play Cyberpunk downloaded from GOG without launching Galaxy.

Basically just go the the folder and run bin\x64\Cyberpunk2077.exe

The "Launch Cyberpunk" shortcut in the folder starts Galaxy and then runs the game from there.


The same is true for Steam games.


Only drm free steam games. The ones with the steam drm require steam client to be running to launch (steam itself can be in offline mode but it still needs to be running)

Games using things like steam input might also require steam to be running so there is some drm free games that might not run also. Some of those will if you move them outside the steam folder / rename Steam.exe. If you leave them in the steam folder the game will start steam for you if when you launch it.


Do you? I was pretty sure the Cyberpunk launcher has a "don't use account" button.


I think that's the point. The GP post basically said, "Gamers can't be messed with." A child post gave a ton of examples of how gamers are messed with, and this comment helps cement that. It does beg the question as to why Steam isn't as evil as it could be but does choose to be as evil as they are. To me (a very casual gamer) they do seem like the least evil.

Also don't knock those zip files purchased off of itch.io. Sometimes it's good to visit a cottage industry to see what's passing under the radar of the big guys.


Gabe remembers both shareware era, and all the pains to get people to trust Steam in the first place.

Your usual publicly traded (or owned by publicly traded entity) corporation in its accidental intelligence does not


>> Name a game distribution platform that doesn't do this.

Why? If another platform also disrespects me, does that mean Steam doesn't disrespect me?


https://www.gog.com/ Is the largest one


Humble Bundle


The most common activation keys in a bundle are ... Steam keys.


I think that's more a situation where publishers demand some form of DRM so steam is trying to provide a default solution that most publishers are happy with.


DRM is optional on Steam and up to the game developer.


> That's the same Valve that doesn't let me play the games I paid it for unless they are running on its platform?

What exactly does that mean, for you?


It's just something to whine about, more than anything.


Were you not aware of that before you purchased the game? How has this negatively impacted you?


Because they're not owned by private equity/publicly traded. If that ever happens the "let's squeeze this for every dime it's worth" will happen.

That's really the saddest thing about capitalism, if everything around us wasn't getting enshittified in the exact same way at least the future would be more alluring.


It is nice to see people bucking the trend getting rewarded, I see a bright future for an open ecosystem for gaming (even ignoring the Steam announcements).

DRM is the publishers choice, worth noting.


Except that you don't own the things you buy on steam


That is true for all media purchases since the invention of copyright in 1662.

You think you own the Silmarillion because you have a paper copy? Hah! No, you have a transferrable license to read it.

Every hard copy movie you have starts with a big green FBI warning reminding you that having that disc does not means you own the movie, it means you have a transferrable license to play it for yourself and small groups on small screens.

Digital media with DRM allow content distributors to remove the "transferrable" part of the license if they want, which often allows them to sell for cheaper since they know that each sale represents only one person recieving the experience. The license comes with less rights (no transferrance), so it can be priced lower.


This is true. But it doesn't matter to me.

Most media for me is a one and done. A book, a movie, a computer game. Granted a computer games version of "done" might mean "played on and off for a year".

There are exceptions to this - books I read again, shows I'd watch again, but games seem to age poorly by comparison. Original Syndicate or Deus Ex - while playable - is not what I remember it to be and I'd rather keep the nostalgic memories than shatter them with a replay.

This rarity of exceptions means that I wouldn't lose much if my Steam account disappeared - mainly just "whatever I'm playing now". Create a new account and go again, or buy off GOG or something.

However in return for using Steam I get a lot of convenience - updates, propogated save files, easy chat and "Right click -> Join Game" with friends. That "Right click -> Join Game" is almost worth it on it's own for ease of social gaming.


Most people consume like this, but some like the warm fuzzies that hoarding gives them.


I would like to see change there for sure. That said, DRM is optional for publishers on Steam. Once you've downloaded a game without DRM (steam's or otherwise) you can back it up and play it without Steam.


This is true for all digital purchases, video games or otherwise.

There is no such thing as "owning" a game unless you're the company that developed the game (or bought the company that did).


Me, too. I've been meaning to upgrade my HTPC for years, but I kept holding off because I had hoped that NVIDIA would release a new ShieldTV (the last one used the same chip as the Switch, so the community had quietly hoped that the Switch 2's release would coincide with a new Shield--no such luck). Assuming the Steam Machine is reasonably priced, I could easily see it also becoming my new Kodi box when not gaming on it.


If the Steam Machine sufficiently supports the DRM required for apps from Netflix, AppleTV, etc, it would definitely be a good option for that. As it is, my SO still likes the apps, though the actual subscriptions have been rotating a bit.


Have you considered dear


it's so refreshing to read something like that from a big company, it's weird, but felt like there's still hope? that there's people in power that still care? strange feeling, still curious about it

the last few in years in tech have been depressing, like no one cares to make something that's actually better for the consumer, it's made me into a cynic and I hate it


>that there's people in power that still care? strange feeling, still curious about it

One day, Gabe Newell will die. Maybe his racer son will inherit the job, or maybe he'll delegate the job. Maybe this new CEO will take Valve public to ensure they get a centi-million dollar payout.

Then all the good times end. This is the halcyon for Steam customers.


While true, at least Gabe proved you could make a profit while still remaining non-evil.


Everyone knows that, it's just that you can make even more if you accept being evil.


All good things must come to an end.


Bad ones too, though.


centi = 10^-2


yeah, that's what was meant, they'll have 10k pay-out day :)


Valve is a private company. I'm not going to say that every public company lacks a product focus, but I think there is a danger in public companies where it becomes natural to promote MBA's over product and even sales roles. I know MBA is treated with hatred here, but I don't think they are necessarily bad or evil, but I do think they have an advantage in obtaining power naturally because it's basically their profession and espesially product people are often bad at corporate politics.

In many public companies there is the added level of investor interest, and it can often be a challenge for the C levels to remain in power during periods of slow or even negative growth. Challenges that companies like Valve simply don't have as long as the CEO is fine with it. On the flip side, I'm happy with my own stock portfolio so there is that.


The problem is that public companies have different incentives. They take a more short term views.

Their shareholders are not in it for the long term. Investment managers tend to look at anything more than two years as "long term", and they are conscious of their position in annual league tables.

Even private equity and venture capital are usually going to be thinking about the value at which they can exit reasonably soon.

The management of the company will be thinking about bonuses and options they get between now and when they move to the next job.

A private company can often take the view that what really matters is how much they will be making in five or ten years time. Maybe even how much it will be worth when the current shareholder’s kids inherit it. The management are often either owners, or are closely monitored by the owners.



Turns out that a company that is not publicly traded and run by people that only care about stock prices, can actually care about their customers.


There's all sorts of things you can do if you don't care about money.

The more interesting point is that if you aren't driven by investors to care about short term financial stuff (stock prices) then you can make long term decisions. Caring about your customers is a classic one for this - costs you money in the short term, but in the long term gets you a great customer base.


They care about money. They definitely care about money. They have achieved a steady cash flow that can sustain their business forever, unless something really bad happens.

What they don't care is the endless growth that MBA guys always try to achieve, and the quarterly profit driven decision making that ultimately destroys their customers loyalty, for short term profit.

A business can be very profitable without being exploitative. It's the people in Wall Street who can't seem to understand this. For them a hundred million dollars of profit is good if last year it was only fifty million dollars, and a dying business if last year it was also a hundred million dollars. It really makes no sense.


Just thinking out loud, but I wonder if Wall Street would be less awful about ruining companies if we were able to get a more meaningful dividend out of your average company? So perhaps the stock price itself stays relatively flat or boring, but the dividend paid out makes up for it. Or perhaps it would be the exact same issue and they’d be squeezing companies to maximize dividends.

I just know that I expect stock prices to go up because most “dividend stocks” give such a small amount of money per share.


This is the magic of the decentralized, invisible-handed, "free" market. Nobody (in particular) tells you what to do, and (ideally) you reach a canonical equilibrium which may (under some idealised circumstances) be optimal (in some sense).

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts this would be the cat's pyjamas. I shan't deny it's mathematically elegant, and also feels good in many ways, but the real trouble is it's exceptionally hard to form a watertight argument for an alternative.

Put another way, the appeal of the free market isn't so much in its correctness as it is in its simplicity. I can personally attest that it's sumple enough for any fool to understand, in an area of economics where it's devilishly difficult to establish anything solidly.

I say all this as someone who is a big fan of Valve and their work, deapite otherwise being a foss zealot, just because they throw a bone to our sort.


My impression of this is that it is partially a tax policy issue.

Dividends are taxed differently and higher than capital gains. So given a choice between a stock buyback and a dividend, often a buyback makes more sense.


People who are capable of saying "I have enough now" will self-select out of the activist investor class. Automatically, the people with the most power to influence publicly traded companies will be people who demand endless growth.

This sort of thing is why I think we need heavy taxes to limit wealth accumulation. Money is power, and the amount of power a person with ten+ figure wealth wields is too much for any one person to have, let alone one who was never elected.


This is sortof a function of buybacks vs dividends. Like, if the market rewards growth (in terms of share prices) then line must go up forever. If you are getting a steady stream of inflation adjusted cash (i.e. dividends), then you can afford to care less about number go up.


Or if you're the underdog and are looking for a competitive advantage in this market. (Just being cynical.)


Props to Valve for not treating freedom like a "pro" feature


Yup. Sounds like its just a PC and not a locked down platform. Its easy for them and convenient for everyone.


Except that (I believe) "just a PC" was a bit offputting for a lot of people - when you buy a PC you can't just turn it on and play video games, especially not after Microsoft's shenanigans.

I'm honestly surprised nobody else tried a "boot to game library" PC, but then, you also need the name and reputation for it. Microsoft could've done it, but they chose to make a console. Which is mostly a PC, but you need xbox games, a separate ecosystem.


I think valve are the only players in a position to do this. They can probably ship this new hardware at a loss and make the money back through steam game purchases. Much like console manufacturers.


LTT reports Valve said it'll be priced "like a PC, not like a console" as in not expect to be subsidized by game purchases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3FkuZNSGkw


Then it will compete more with those entry-level SFF PC builds.

I still hope that they will compete with console pricing though.


Which means expensive


I see :)


>nobody else tried a "boot to game library" PC,

Since Valve owns the library it makes sense that people will trust their solution and it has more chance for succcess


> I'm honestly surprised nobody else tried a "boot to game library" PC

Microsoft used to have Windows Media Centre, which was a version of Windows designed for HTPC use that booted straight to the media centre control screen. The last version of that was in Windows 7.

It is actually possible to replace the desktop in Windows, window management (but not chrome, that's part of Aero and/or individual "owner draw" applications), Explorer etc. Nobody's really bothered with that.

Microsoft are just too used to not having to compete, so they don't provide lots of variant SKUs for different uses. Even "point of sale" and LTS are somewhat neglected.


This. Zero reason I should have to download Playnite for a unified gaming frontend


they've done a ton of engineering to make this happen. they implemented the necessary interfaces in steam, _they developed proton_ to avoid windows, worked with hardware to get console features like wake from controller connect, and custom hardware we see here.


>Except that (I believe) "just a PC" was a bit offputting for a lot of people - when you buy a PC you can't just turn it on and play video games, especially not after Microsoft's shenanigans.

Steam deck is "just a PC" as well, which can be turned on to immediately play video games.

Thanks to its reputation, the masses will trust the Steam Machine to do this much.

Valve know what they're doing.


That machine would be very different from my gaming PC however. I could use it exactly like a console, which is a different use case than a desktop PC.


I have a Steam Deck. All you have to do to use it like a desktop PC is to connect a cheap hub with power delivery, HDMI and USB ports for keyboard and mouse, then boot into KDE Plasma which is a regular desktop environment.

Honestly, my SD has seen more use as a stationary PC than a handheld :-P


I mean, even Valve has tried it in the past, and it was a failure. Look up Steam Machines from 2010s. I consider the success of Steam Deck (thanks to flawless execution this time) as almost a minor miracle.


The big difference is the extra years of work that went into Proton and Steam-on-Linux ecosystem, including controller support etc.


A failure they fully admit they learned from. Proton was the outcome of that failure, and I'd say they are well poised to make a bigger dent this time.


but it has 'steam' in the name. So the target is the steam audience already.

>Microsoft could've done it, but they chose to make a console.

Missed the one, they did try with the rebranding of 'xbox'


That rebranding and Microsoft's abjectly terrible product naming convention essentially killed the Xbox. What the absolute fuck were they smoking when they went from Xbox, to Xbox 360, to Xbox One, to Xbox One X, to Xbox Series S and X? Like anybody wants an enterprise gaming console.

Absolutely bonkers considering how strong they came in with the first Xbox, Halo, and Xbox Live.

And the rationale that they couldn't go from Xbox to Xbox 3 because of the PS3 is abject bullshit. They skipped Windows 9, after all.


Nintendo almost managed to do the same to their own gaming machines with the absolutely insanely inadequate Nintendo Wii / Wii U decision making.

As an engineer and a consumer / customer, I simply cannot understand why there's a need to complicate things.

You have a Thing, right? It sells, right? You develop the next Thing? Great! Call it Thing 2. Instant success.


I wonder why car manufacturers don't operate like that. They might add a number to the model (e.g. "Golf IV"), but it will always be advertised as "The new VW Golf".

What would've happened if Nintendo simply would've advertised "The new Nintendo Switch"?

Never thought about that, but now it's an interesting thought experiment.


In the world of cars, industrial design is the version number. Beyond that, VW just wants to sell their latest Golf to whomever is buying a new hatchback today. End of strategy.

Numbering helps sell electronics because it makes it clear that your old phone/console is old and "needs" upgrading. It's also critical for selling software exclusive to a certain hardware generation.


They did that with the "New Nintendo 3DS". It was confusing as hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Nintendo_3DS

Things are going wrong when you have a model name like "New Nintendo 2DS XL" to describe a product IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Nintendo_2DS_XL


I think they made like three games for that one.


Many people replace their car on a regular basis because it is considered a wear item.

With computer/console, you have to pretend the devicethey are still enjoying is obsolete to invent a need to replace it


Imagine how much more money Sony could have made if they called their latest game console Playstation Ø


Funny that you used that symbol, as it would have been a fantastically bad choice for clarity in product naming. I'm going to assume that you're German speaking and think of it as meaning "average".

In my head it would have been the "Playstation Island", while for most of the world it would probably have been the "Playstation Empty Set".


Not as fantastically bad as “Xbox One” though.


You mean the X-bone?


Playstation half-diminished, a.k.a Playstation mi7(b5)/"minor seven flat five"


Fortunately while Squarenix is still important to Playtstation (and Tetsuya Nomura to Squarenix), it's not the juggernaut it once was in the early 2000.

(for those who don't get it: Tetsuya Nomura is a director at Squarenix and known (amongst other) for its Kingdom Heart series who ends up with word salad title such as "Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue" or "Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days")


This is a good comment, I don’t understand the downvotes.

Anything that makes the PC gaming experience more like a console is good. This is the first gaming PC that I could actually justify putting in the living room.


> I'm honestly surprised nobody else tried a "boot to game library" PC

Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Atari, Sega...

They intentionally choose to brand their personal computers poorly to coerce their customers into giving up control of their computers. That doesn't make their computers any less personal, unless they are using it to serve other people.


Valve had to make an entire operating system to make this the case for steam games.

A lot of these capabilities would rely on windows, sleeping and resuming the system thats entirely the purview of the OS.

And Microsoft just doesn't care.


Microsoft had to make an entire operating system to make this the case for running Xbox games. Sony had to make an entire operating system to make this work for PlayStation games. I don't really know why that's significant.


Microsoft’s core competency is a general purpose operating system that can be used for anything and work with infinite combinations of hardware.

The fact that you can almost, sort of use a Windows PC as a gaming console, even with all the headaches that come with it, is something of a miracle.


> Valve had to make an entire operating system

A Linux distribution. Which is often done by one person. Zero snark intended.


Valve did not write Linux from scratch or something...


The goal with consoles is not to force people to give up control of their computers, it’s to create the best possible gaming appliance, which consoles succeed at.


What is the difference between an appliance and a computer?


Speaking of electronic devices, an appliance is generally locked down, and the manufacturer limits the number of use cases. You end up with something that is not a general-purpose computer, even though many use the same hardware as a computer would.

A game console is a classic appliance. You turn it on and see your current game running or a selection of games to play and you can start playing a game with zero intermediate steps.

The Steam Deck and Steam Box are designed as appliance emulators—they boot and by default operate in appliance mode. They can provide the same exact experience as a console if you use them as designed. They are also general-purpose computers, if you wish to step out of console mode.


The easiest way to see the difference is to take a desktop PC, plug it into your living room TV set, and try to play games on it.


Can you tell me what the difference is?


Uh

* two major platforms on PC and one of em doesn’t sport a Big Picture mode

* the other store does nasty tricks like never terminate a game process completely when you launch their titles through the other platform (very obvious w/ Alan Wake 2)

* other store’s titles doesn’t have this problem if I use Playnite as the TV frontend, but Playnite is a giant security vulnerability waiting to happen cause you need 3rd party plugins to emulate Steam Big Picture

* entire swatches of games that act funny with Steam Input or have incomplete configurations and I don’t feel like figuring that out just to play Backrooms

* Windows window management when using Steam Big Picture w/ controller is bad, b/c lots of desktop things will steal focus (hello Rockstar Games and EA)

* oh yeah, mandatory LAUNCHERS

* Try to play Mass Effect Legendary Edition on a TV with a controller; no really, try

* don’t even get me started on OOTB auto HDR config for almost any random TV with PS5 vs dicking around with the NVIDIA control panel

* the Steam store navigation w/ controller is baaaaad in 2025, many times you won’t be able to move or select certain things.

This is an incomplete list. It actually doesn’t matter whether you have a point-by-point refutation, no non-technical person wants to deal with any of this. They want machine to take care of everything. That’s what an appliance is

(Edit: formatting)


Thank you for writing all of this so that I didn’t have to.

And the exciting thing is I’m not even aware of many of those because I don’t play the same games and use different peripherals. If I listed out all my issues many would be unique to me. There are an infinity of issues with using a PC as a console.

A random one - audio outputs and inputs randomly locking to something you aren’t actually using. Between virtual devices for streaming apps you didn’t know you installed, weird devices hidden in USB peripherals, outputs on various TVs and monitors - my sound rarely “just works” and I have to spend a lot of time in the desktop fiddling around with the system tray.


I made sure to match brand between my TV and sound system for this reason. Also reminds me: you can have wake from sleep with an Xbox controller on PC, but not any other controller, and Windows won’t wake if I turn the TV on and switch to the PC connection; consoles have done this a long time.


>> when you buy a PC you can't just turn it on and play video games, especially not after Microsoft's shenanigans.

In like, what way? You can "just" boot up a new Windows PC, install some games and play them straight away. Do you mean the fact that you now have to log into a Microsoft account first? Because if yes - SteamOS also requires you to log in before you can use it.


I'm sure someone will install OpenStep and recreate a NeXT computer 2.0


GNUStep is still going.


If a single GNU steps in the forest, does it make a sound?


If anyone was around to hear it... yes


It just won’t torch the same (1).

(1) https://simson.net/ref/1993/cubefire.html


Or stack eight of them and build a Connection Machine


Install Previous and boot into it, voila ;)



Meanwhile Microsoft be like: we are going to ship AI to your computer, eat all the resource, lag your game despite you don't use it and neither you don't want it at all.


Fingers crossed for a smartphone next. So sick of that force fed walled garden crap from Apple and Google.

Might also help to slow down enshittification by a bit if there was a popular alternative. Maybe something like Waydroid could even ease with transition.


Damn, a smartphone made by Valve would make me splurge for more than middle-low end, for the respect they give us alone.

It just needs my banking apps, and and I'll be happy to pay for it.


It's actually not that impossible, given how the DRM ecosystem trusts steam I could imagine banking apps doing the same.

Some banks might even be up for putting children's banking apps on the steam deck to start with.


Starting an application ecosystem is not trivial. Banks aren't going to rush to write a new app for an OS with such a small market presence. Banks also like and guide security features they rely on in phone apps.


Yeah it would still be difficult. But I could imagine that if steam offered to give a few million to cover development costs and gave projections of 20k new customers, they might be able to convince one of the not very profitable children's fintech banks to develop for the platform.


SteamPhone sounds…… metal as fuck. I’d buy it for the name alone


Signed in just to upvote this. Amen homie


Given that the frame runs steamOS on ARM hardware, I could see something like a phone in the future.

But also, phones don't seem to be the best hardware to play PC games which is kinda the whole deal.

I maybe would see first a smaller ARM based device (like those retro consoles).


Or.. just a better experience for mobile games, if they have porting tools.


And just like that, valve will keep winning spectacularly.


Their "launch trailer" shows the Steam Machine running Windows.


Do you mean this (~3m04s)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmKrKTwtukE&t=184s

That was the desktop mode, showing KDE Plasma (a linux desktop environment).

Also, Blender on the left screen and Godot on the right screen!


Wasn't that the desktop mode of SteamOS?


Was going to post, exactly, this statement but found it is already spotted!

I just hope Google & Apple read, understand and follow this.


That stood out to me too but my reaction was “whatever, just another promise that won’t age well”.


This holds true for the Steam Deck, so I can't imagine why they would promise it and not follow through.


I mean I'm sure it will be true for as long as Gabe is in charge, the moment he steps away I think all bets are off, depending on who takes over after him.


>I'm so happy to read this

it rings hollow from a company whose entire bedrock for existence is DRM procedures.

does Steam still disallow accounts from playing more than one independently owned game at a time without special procedures?


Steam DRM is weak, non intrusive and optional so complain to the devs for enabling it. I rather take steam DRM than securerom or denuvo.


The problem is for now more of principle. Any DRM means you depend on Valve/Steam to continue to legally play your purchased games. If Valve has a change of heart, or of leadership, or hits a financial rough patch they can easily become a rent seeking gatekeeper. That non-intrusive DRM is the thin line between perpetually accepting Valve's conditions or playing illegally. This isn't a Valve specific problem but they get a free pass today because of all the good things they've done and the good will they're continuously showing. If this ever runs out a lot of people will be very disappointed.

I'm not judging them "by comparison" because it's hard to look bad next to Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc. Just looking objectively at the situation, even if Valve was alone on the market.


“Not having drm” is also a “for now” thing. Everything is “for now”. A person being good, a corporation being bad, everything can be appended with “for now”. It’s not an argument. You look at historical actions and willingness to change. Valve has been doing business this way forever.


> “Not having drm” is also a “for now” thing

What do you mean? My GOG offline installers should work fine with or without internet or GOG services for as long as the binaries can be executed. I can pass them on to my grandkids, if they'll ever be interested. You can own games, music, videos. You can do what you want with them, sell them, give them to family or friends. Any non-dystopian interpretation of DRM means you get to keep what you own. Changes don't apply to already owned things. When "renting" changes can apply retroactively to everything.

> everything can be appended with “for now”

Only if you're looking to be unreasonable and make any argument irrelevant. But we're trying to have a constructive conversation not shoot down everything with generic, nihilistic arguments.

You wan to look at history but so selectively that it only supports your argument. Few companies stayed faithful to the customer without fault especially when the visionary leader and owner retired, or they hit hard times. The norm is for them to pull a bait and switch as soon as the profits looked too good to pass. When Gabe is out it could go either way, slowly or all at once.


The difference is that "Not having DRM" means the games I bought with no DRM is still there once they enable it. For example, with GOG I download the games I buy and there's no way they can enable DRM on the copies I made.

On the other hand, if the games already have DRM and it gets worse or for whatever reason Valve goes under and you can't play your games anymore, well... you can't play any DRMed game without using whatever DRM mechanism they'll choose next.

In other words "No DRM -> DRM" and "DRM -> Worse DRM" have different outcomes.

> Valve has been doing business this way forever.

And Google's motto was "Don't be evil" and for a good chunk of their life they weren't. That worked out well, did it? I'm not saying Valve will do a 180 and squander all the good faith it acquired. I'm just saying it's not beyond the realm of possibility.


>And Google's motto was "Don't be evil"

People here like to pretend google wasn't evil from the start.

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...

But you are right there is always the possibility they turn to shit. The advantage is that compared to other DRMs it is trivial to break even by yourself and all steam games are already freely available cracked so if they do just torrent them.


>>For example, with GOG I download the games I buy and there's no way they can enable DRM on the copies I made.

There is no way for Steam to enable DRM on a copy of a game you made after you downloaded it from Steam. It's a weird argument to use really - once you copied the data elsewhere neither platform can do anything with it.


There are a few DRM-free Steam games but most devs on Steam enable the DRM. This isn't Steam's fault but Steam is holding the reins of that access. It works great now, so smooth you can't tell there's DRM. But at the end of the day most of my collection is at the whims of Valve.

I'm personally concerned about what happens when Gabe retires or shuffles off this mortal coil, and his replacement comes with a "fresh" revenue idea. He's a one of a kind visionary leader, it's not a sure thing that his successor is the same. I've been baited and switched so many times in the past few decades that it's hard to blindly trust any company for more than the very immediate future.


>I'm personally concerned about what happens when Gabe retires

From the couple documentaries I have seen over the years it already seems like he is basically retired, only working on things he is interested in like the brain interface stuff. I think as long as valve stays a private company the enshitification will be limited.


> he is basically retired

He owns Valve so semi-retired still means he at least keeps the spirit going. This can't last forever.


I'm not sure I'm understanding how Steam DRM works then. Does it phone home? Or is it tied to a particular device? How is this verified?

In the first case they can just refuse to let you use your copy when you ask for permission.


If the DRM is enabled, the game does a simple "Is the game available in the user's library?" and steams says yes or no.

If the game didn't have DRM enabled, no check is made. Copy the game folder elsewhere, without steam install and it should launch.

Devs can enable the DRM afterward, but your copy won't be locked.

But even then, if valve goes bad guy, the DRM is simple enough to be broken, and there is no double check or something preventing you from playing (unlike Denuvo which encrypts the game and has multiple separate checks for the DRM).


> If the DRM is enabled, the game does a simple "Is the game available in the user's library?" and steams says yes or no.

So if one day Steam (more broadly, Valve) says "nope" you're locked out of your game, correct?


Yes (that's the point of a DRM), but like I said, the DRM is easily broken. Some games can also still use steam features when cracked (like joining lobbies, inviting friends, etc), and it's the same "crack" for every game (not withstanding other DRM the game may have).

With Valve, I'm more concerned of not being able to download the games if they go under, than the DRM on the games I have. Over time, the Steam DRM has also been more permissive than before, as I can now play my "family's" games and they can play mine.


Part of the apparently forgotten but huge amount of work that went into making digital storefront for games that people trust to work was that Valve publicly talked about verifying things such as a procedure to globally strip DRM from all games, in case Steam was to cease operations.


Indeed that's what I remember too. So like I said, the risk is more not being able to download the games than the Steam DRM being there.


There is more than a single kind of Steam DRM (before even mentioning all the 3rd parties they allow) :

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/how_to_run_steam_games_off...


That has nothing to do with launching more than one steam game at once not being allowed.


You can now have steam families and have two members play different games from the same library. Assuming you were using two machines you could just have a second account as a family member and play both. Or do you have a crazy beefy computer and are trying to run two different games on one machine?


Not really. It still has a library level lock. What Steam Families has enabled is to play games from each other's libraries at the same time. For example, if my account has a game A, and your has a game B, I can play the game B while you play the game A. This used to be disabled before.

You still cannot play a game C from my library while I play the game A from my own library.

The only way to be able to play any game you want would be to create a separate account for each game.


> You still cannot play a game C from my library while I play the game A from my own library.

I just tried it, and I could.


You can go offline on one of the machines (but yes, it is very annoying).


> does Steam still disallow accounts from playing more than one independently owned game at a time without special procedures?

Yes. I just tried launching one game on Steam Deck and another one on my desktop and it showed a message:

> Error - Steam: You are logged in on another computer already playing Railbound. Launching Clutchtime™: Basketball Deckbuilder here will disconnect the other session from Steam.


This is outrageous.


No. That restriction has been gone for a few years now.

I can run rimworld and quasimorph via steam at the same time, as an example.


Only if you do it on the same computer. The restriction is still there if you try to, for example, run one game on your PC and another on Steam Deck.


technically you can easily bypass it by using two accounts and use family sharing with the extra account


I agree. DRM sucks badly. I'd argue that it's a bit of a compliance thing though. Eg publisher lawyers saying DRM is needed, given that there doesn't seem to be much push from Steam for anything "draconian". At least it is for public broadcasters having online archives that also sometimes have DRM even where it isn't actually required (self-produced stuff).

However, there is still a huge difference between buying hardware that literally "jails" you and force feeds you DRM and a system where even in the marketing says you can completely tear away all of that without jailbreaks, etc. and without stuff being super fiddly.


Is going offline a special procedure?


You need to click twice


This is my number one beef with steam. It's such a big thorn on a rose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: