Why on earth do people have to "trash" their 360s if they buy the next console? If they are heavily invested in the 360 then they keep their 360. Having to have a second console hooked up is far removed from trashing it.

I would be utterly shocked if MS or sony makes even the slightest attempt at backward compatibility this time around. I would be happy for them to prove me wrong, but they have already proven they can cut that corner without meaningful consequence.

Valid concerns and desires, but none of means jack all unless the thing has a ton of games to play, which it won't. Not unless Linux significantly changes and catches on in the next year.

Also it reeks a little of overstepping. Every company does this, they get successful and then they keep looking for more and overstep. If I were them I would simply work with Dell or someone similar to make a good pre-built PC that is cheap, small and designed for an entertainment center which comes with Steam pre-installed and booted into big picture mode on startup. That makes sense, is something they can do and even if Windows 9 is a closed system they can keep selling them with 7 or 8 installed.

Just my opinion. Honestly none of it truly matters to me because I like my desk and mouse control. Also I accepted a long time ago my days of buying new games in earnest are winding down.

Maybe Valve will be the driving force behind it. If nothing else, make their own gaming-orientated "Linux variant" that only they supply. Most likely Valve is still trying to figure out themselves how to deal with Linux, this is all still experimenting I think (introducing a gaming "console" of their own based on Linux, and at the same time dabbling in desktop Linux gaming).

After all, most smartphones are nowadays also running "Linux", or Google's idea of a proprietary OS whose roots are in Linux.

I just see this as Valve's desire to stay as one of the leaders, not followers (who just take any scraps that drop down from Microsoft's table). If Microsoft hadn't introduced Windows Store/"XBox Games" into PC desktop, I presume Valve would have had much less desire to change their current market status.

Someone earlier had a very good point that if they used e.g. Windows in their gaming console, then they would be still totally in MS's grasp, which also happens to be their main competitor in the gaming console realm. Not a good position for Valve, if they really want to stay in the competition.

They're literally trying to change the world though with this. The next consoles will be DirectX based. The entire history of PC gaming is 90% DirectX based. They were under MS' thumb the minute they decided to distribute PC games. I don't think they have anywhere near the clout to change any of that.

We shall see though.

Independant studios bought out by Valve midway through development.

Counterstrike, Left 4 Dead, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Day of Defeat, all made by third parties. All valve ever developed was Half Life and Half Life 2.
Chatpads are your friend.

It's true that a company trying to get an advantages over its competitor and gain a bigger grasp over its main market is definitely crazy conspiracies theories... which companies would ever be crazy enough to think about something like that...


Valve might have a pretty good "grasp" on the PC gaming market, they have two big Achilles heel : the OS and the hardware on which they have absolutely no control. They are both at the mercy of Microsoft and NVidia/ATI goodwill.

With PC sales slowly but surely declining, SOC market becoming more and more profitable for NVidia & Co as opposed to discrete video card which become less and less so, and worse Microsoft and Sony (and publishers) growing interest toward cloud gaming (If Sony/Ms are smart I wouldn't be surprised they start offering "buy a game on PS4/X720 and play it on PC/Tablet/phone for the same price" offers), they have the risk of becoming in a not too distant future "obsolete".

If they can somehow manage to move a sizable part of their customers towards their own hardware, on an OS outside of Microsoft reach, and of course convince publishers to follow them, it can give them a much stronger position in the long run.

Never tried one, but my hands are pretty large, I have trouble gripping most normal gamepads, so I'm not sure if a chatpad would be better than a keyboard for me.

Completely uninterested in this, especially if I can't play the dozen or so games I own on Steam already.

As others have already said, it's just as easy to hook your PC up to the television anyway, so why bother buying a proprietary box just for Steam? I have that already.

Any company that knows that fair trade laws will rip you a new one if you are using illegal trade practices. Which is what you implied.

I wonder if MS is missing those two billion dollars it had to fork over to the EU....

Sounds like another console. Will it have kinect like controls? If not...

PS4 will be DirectX based? Hmm, what? DirectX is a set of MS proprietary APIs, it will never be used anywhere but in MS operating systems.

The rumor mill says differently, PS3 got burned by being so different from PC architecture. I'm not sure how the licensing there works, but the system will definitely be more like a PC in a box next time according to reports.

It will likely be much more similar to the standard PC architecture in terms of hardware components, but I am expecting them to continue to use OpenGL (maybe even a more standard version of OpenGL) like they did with the PS3.

Motion Control needs to go away

Second Edit: More recent article on the Xi3/Valve system.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/7/3849284/piston-valve-steam-box-xi3

The design is based on a $999 system from the company with similar specs. If its that much for a system without a dedicated GPU then it's purpose is even more head scratching.