The title of this thread caused me to panic and I had to conduct a thorough search of my living room to regain peace of mind.

On a more serious note -- I'm not sure how this will work, hardware requirements for games increase quite fast and Valve are talking about a "very controlled [hardware] environment". Maybe people are expected to buy a newer, better Steambox yearly or something.

I used a USB keyboard on my Wii for texting in Monster Hunter. It was a mess, and i wasn't even using it for actual gameplay, it was all just so inconvenient to have a keyboard on your lap. Keyboard and mouse really only work when sitting at a desk.

Why?

My guess is probably because there aren't that many games on Linux.
Unless they can get a shit-load of developers to jump onto Linux support or they bundle games with Wine (or something similar), there's not going to be much to play.
Which is kind of the point of the Steambox.
To, you know, play games.

At least, that's what I see as the big issue with using Linux.

Indeed.

Also it kills 95% of legacy support for the 400 games I have on my Steam account already.

So it will be either very expensive because its a gaming pc in a htpc case or it will only play games on medium settings at max and maybe some demanding games only at low because it is a budget pc and if it runs on linux it won't play most games anyway. One thing I could think of is that developers can optimize their games for steambox so that they run better than they would on another system with similar hardware.

How it's any different from any new console at launch? Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_console_launch_games, it's not like other consoles had plenty of games to play from the start. And what kind of alternative for Valve you see? Create their own proprietary OS from scratch?

IIRC, I seem to remember them mentioning something like that somewhere, where games could be bundled with Steambox specific configurations or versions that would run better on the Steambox. I could be talking out of my ass on this, but I remember them mentioning that somewhere.

EDIT: Or, rather, they would like to have support for specific configurations or versions.

I think the main thing for people wanting to get this would be support for their games that they already own on Steam from the get go. I'm not saying it's a terrible idea as I'm a supporter for Steam on Linux (beta user since the start), but it seems like something that they should give a year or two to push out (once Linux support for Steam has increased). Releasing it right now, with the market for gaming on Linux as it is, just doesn't seem to be a good move.

I could be wrong, though. They could already have big names on board.
I'm just saying that it doesn't seem good as of yet.

In modern times the PS2, PS3, Wii, Wii U, and to a lesser extent, 360 all had backwards compatibility at launch that gave people access to the libraries they already had, or could go back and get if they didn't have the previous console. Making a Linux based console breaks compatibility with the majority of games on Steam.

Major 3rd parties like EA and Activision already get most of their sales on consoles. They have little reason to do Linux ports on-top of current development costs to support a Valve console. If the 3rd parties won't show Valve isn't going to tap into the console user base. They won't even make a real dent in the PC userbase as a Linux based machine won't run their steam games unless ported.

Maybe they feel that may be the only option in the long run, in case Microsoft keeps converting PC gaming into its own little walled garden (without Steam), following Apple's footsteps. So, a kinda backup plan in case they see themselves being marginalized bit by bit in "Windows gaming" by Microsoft.

That, and at least they don't have to hand out money to Microsoft for every Windows installed on Steambox units. Same way like for (cheap) phone makers Android is much more lucrative than Windows.

I wouldn't necessarily mind PC gaming (as we know it now) move to Linux in the long run. Not sure how doable it is, but we'll see.

The ps2 and wii were two of the only consoles ever to provide any real backward compatibility. 360 was trash, and Sony started backpedaling support almost immediately for the PS2 on PS3. The vast majority of the time if someone wants a new platform they buy it for what is up and coming and keep the old console to play what had been if they even care.

I don't believe there is any strength in the argument that backwards compatibility has ever been a major barrier against a platform's acceptance. I wish it was done more, and I think people care to some extent about it, but just not enough to stop them from buying something new. And if Valve can create enough momentum moving forward then that really is all they need.

It doesn't break it at all because people can still play their Windows-based Steam games on the Windows PC they originally bought those games for. Same way like if I bought PS3 or XBox360 now, I'd still play my PS2 games on my PS2 unit.

Valve is obviously dividing their own business to two different markets with this move. Then again, so did Microsoft, when they entered the console gaming business with XBox and didn't just continue publishing Age of Empires 4 and 5 and Midtown Madness 4 to PC machines.

Yes, but what kind of alternative they had? Try to license Microsoft OS to compete with Microsoft?

It was not yet announced if PS4 and Xbox 720 are going to have any backward compatibility. Both of them change their architectures to x86, so it's not that unlikely that they would not have any (especially PS4). And if they would it would be some kind of emulation -- the thing Valve also can do using Wine. Yes, it would be hard to get EA, Activision, etc., on their board, but it's hardly a Linux-related problem.

Sony has an alternate solution from buying Gaikai for people to stream games. It isn't the best solution due to latency and requiring good internet speeds, but it is an option. I see Microsoft having to do something as I don't see people just trashing all the 360 purchases they made over the last several years, especially ones on xbox live. Yes both cut out BC eventually, Nintendo did too, but it was there at the start to try and help bring along customers. With WINE they could get games working, but the time needed to test and verify everything would be huge. Valve only has about 300 employees from what I read. It would be on the developers/publishers themselves to get things working with Linux.

If people have a gaming PC, and the Valve box won't run most of their steam games, they have no reason to get one. As stated earlier in the thread, just run an HDMI cable to your TV and be done with it. Valve will keep releasing everything on PC as they would lose too many sales not to.

If they aren't aiming at the PC gamer, then they are targeting primarily console gamers. However they tend to go where the 3rd parties are and where their friends play. Which is either with Sony or Microsoft. As is it it's looking like a niche product for people that like Valve/indies and don't want to buy or build a PC for gaming.

We will see. I recall similar amazement and suspicion when Microsoft announced entering the console gaming market. After all, what do they know about console gaming? It is simply not possible that a non-Japanese console company would prevail, because Sony this, Nintendo that and Sega whatever.

Or, Apple/Google and mobile phones... Things can change pretty fast.

As for third-parties, I don't quite get it why EA, Activision etc. would deem a Steam console any worse than a Microsoft or Sony console. If anything, it might give them synenergy benefits with their PC releases, depending on how Steam handles it.

Naturally it is also possible it fails. Apple Pippin failed too even though they had the best console gamepad ever: it included a trackball!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pippin-Atmark-Console-Set.png