With Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all gearing up to release or unveil next-gen consoles within the next three years, and Apple rumored to be releasing the iPad 3 before 2012 is up, it seems like the market will be oversaturated with new tech for the foreseeable future. Only a crazy person, or a crazy developer, could possibly think that throwing their name into the console ring could garner anything besides groans and confused laughter. Thankfully, there are quite a few of these “personalities” that exist in the video game industry.
Among those developers is Valve, who if the rumors are true, may actually be developing a next-gen console to compete with the PS4, Wii U, and Durango. Rumors had surfaced previously that suggested Valve was working on such a project, but nothing much came of them, and most figured it was yet another Valve tease.
However, according to The Verge, this Valve console is no myth, and it actually carries quite a few features/qualities that would make it a true competitor. Rather than being a dedicating gaming console of sorts, this Valve device would essentially be a PC-esque console capable of running Steam, Origin, or any comparable digital distribution service.
The Valve console would set itself apart not just by offering PC games, but also by not charging developers or publishers a licensing fee and allowing multiple companies to manufacture the machine. Put in simpler terms, this would be a cross between OnLive, a home PC, and an open source console. And, for just a little more added flourish, the console would feature a bracelet capable of reading biometric data – a feature explored by Nintendo, but one that never saw the light of day.
But, as any good Valve fan knows, the developer/publisher is a lot of talk and has a ton of rumors surrounding them at any given moment, making this rumor seem extremely unlikely. However, also according to The Verge, Valve is believed to have shown this console off at CES, and is looking to either GDC or E3 2012 to make an official unveiling.
It seems extremely far fetched, Valve making a Steam-powered console and it potentially releasing this year, nevertheless it’s something that caught our eye. The possibilities for launch titles alone (Half Life 3 anyone?) are enough to get the heart racing, let alone knowing that another intriguing, and probably expensive, piece of tech is on the horizon.
What would you like to see out of a Valve console? Do you think it is smart of them to be entering the console war at a time like this?
Source: The Verge (via Kotaku)
Xbox One: Watch The Next-Gen Xbox Presentation Here! 
Electronic Arts Engineer Blasts the Wii U 
What You May Not Know About The ‘Xbox One’ [Updated] 
GR Giveaway: Win a Superhero-Sized Trip to San Diego This July! 
Loading ...
It’s certainly an interesting rumor but, as you say, it’s still extremely vague. It gives me another reason to long for E3 though.
There is only one logical choice in naming this machine – The Steam Punk. All other consoles would get “punked” by the Steam Punk. Seriously, this type of console could potentially give rise to more blue chip PC titles and less crappy console ports. The PC is the platform of choice for the hardcore gamer, so keyboard support would be required. Long live AWSD. Using any other controller makes you all thumbs.
PC isnt the choice for hardcore gamers, its not that black and white. Consoles are streamlined and a cheaper investment for the average/majority of gamers, which is why it is more popular.
Which makes them avid gamers. The hardcore gamer will invest time and money in building their own machine and upgrading that machine periodically to improve appearance and performance of the games. Lag is not tolerated. The console that was purchased 2 years ago is still functioning at the level of technology they had during it’s development, while a PC you built 2 years may already have a new graphics card, more memory or faster processor installed. The reason Microsoft will not release a keyboard for the Xbox is that they believe it gives the gamer an unfair advantage because it is more accurate and responsive. I will never own an Xbox because it is basically a crippled PC that plays mediocre games. They have not produced an Xbox only title that would justify spending over 400 dollars in equipment to play. I suppose that the 10 yr. old kid that spends every spare moment playing the Legend of Zelda and Mario Kart would consider himself hardcore too. So yea, the term hardcore is subjective, but that was not really the focus of my original post. A open source console with PC capabilities and expanded functionality would stand a good chance of luring the desk top crowd into the living room without killing the PC gaming market.
I disagree the “hardcore gamer” (I put it in quotes because I hate that term and every muppet comes out and says they are hardcore) would say screw all your fanboyisms I’m going to have an awesome PC while buying all the consoles, so they can play any game that comes out at all be it for nintendo, sony, xbox or a pc exclusive, and with multi platform games they can choose which they want to buy it for. If most of their friends play something on playstation they would be more likely to get it for that even though graphically the pc is the better choice.
On topic though I am interested to see how they do should these rumours be true. I reckon they are doing it for cross platform gaming, if they work it from both sides it would be much easier to handle for them.
If you say so, FreshCoyote. Apparently you know it all and I won’t spit on that.
What you are describing is a Nerd not a “hardcore” gamer. IMO a hardcore gamer is someone who embraces every aspect of gaming and they respect the art form in all of it’s incarnations. They don’t choose sides. They would be just as likely to be playing their NES or Dreamcast as they would be clicking away on a custom powerhouse. Hardcore gaming is a philosophy. I HATE the term because it is misconstrued by fanboys to characterize their platform of choice.
Agreed.
I support this well thought and concise response.
^This.
So the guys that play Halo 3 for cash prizes aren’t “Hardcore”? You can easily be “Hardcore” and not own a PC. No offense, but that’s a total elitest attitude. I consider myself a “Hardcore” gamer (I play whenever I can, I love gaming) but I’m also broke. I can’t afford a PC, and by the time I save up for enough, it’ll be at a point where newer, more expensive parts are needed to play the newest games with even moderate graphics and frame rate. And don’t tell me about the “cheap” 200-400$ PC’s, at that point I could buy a console for cheaper and get the same performance. So no, you don’t have to game PC to be a “Hardcore” gamer.
I wouldn’t say because you enter gaming competitions that makes you “hardcore gamer”, if you did it for a living which a number of people do you would be a pro gamer rather than a hardcore one. But as the term has never actually been defined, it’s going to have different meanings to different people I guess.
It’s a completely arbitrary word, hardcore. There’s no clinical definition of what a hardcore gamer is, so arguing the semantics of it is an exercise in futility. Playing games on the PC doesn’t make you a hardcore gamer; it makes you a PC gamer. If you think that fact alone gives you more “gamer cred,” or whatever, then you’re a fool. I mean, we all know that a REAL gamer spends every waking hour in an arcade, pumping quarters and energy drinks. Wouldn’t even OWN a computer. We’re all just poseurs here.
@ATG
Do we need to get into this again? No, consoles are not cheaper. They might SEEM cheaper, but they are not. They are not cheaper in the initial investment since you’re buying a console IN ADDITION to a PC, most of you have both a PC and a console right?? While a PC gamer ONLY buys a PC and no console. Sure the PC is more expensive than a console by itself, but factor in the price of the console gamer’s PC, then you’ll realize the initial investment is either the same or it’s actually BETTER for the PC gamer.
Then there are the prices for the games, online multiplayer, and DLC’s… Do the math, then tell me if console gaming is cheaper.
If you like console gaming, that’s fine, but just don’t be using misinformation as your reason for it. I know ATG, you are a console gamer and a PC gamer, but seriously, you have to stop talking about how much cheaper it is to be a console gamer, it’s completely false. I can promise you I’ve spent a whole hell of a lot less money on gaming related hardware and software than the average console gamer here… No doubt in my mind…
Think of it this way, we (my family) only buy cheaper, older PC’s, because that’s all we need, since I don’t game on it. In fact, the 2005 PC I’m using right now, we got for 150$ from a friend used, and serves us just fine. As far as games and stuff go, yes, you get free DLC, and yes, you get games about 10$ cheaper, but you also have to upgrade your hardware every 2 years or so to keep up with gaming graphics and frame rates. On the other hand, while our games may not look as good, we’ve had these consoles since what, ’07? And unless you bought the new “Slim” consoles or yours broke, we’re more than likely still running our originally (and yes, I know Xbox’s have ridiculous failure rates, but I’ve had 2, and neither have failed, I just turned one in for the newer version, which was my personal choice).
@Joe
I could never understand where you guys get the logic that you “have” to upgrade every few years… If you *WANT* to be able to run the newest games on the *HIGHEST* graphics, then yes, you might need to upgrade since new games MIGHT try to push the current hardware, but you don’t *NEED* to. If you compare the graphics on a PC and on a console, if the PC was EVER faster than the console, it’ll ALWAYS be faster than that console. Makes sense? Since the console’s hardware never changes, the PC will never magically be slower and *NEED* to be upgraded. So for the life of the console the PC will ALWAYS run comparable games at better graphics without the need to upgrade. Sure you might need to bump down the graphics settings in some newer games, but you’re not comparing console graphics to the MAX graphics of new PC games, because that would be silly…
For a fair comparison, as long as the PC game is ANYWHERE above the console’s graphics, it’s already better. Doesn’t matter if it’s not maxed out on the PC or not.
Even if you don’t know a lot about computer hardware and stuff like that, simple logic will tell you that since the hardware doesn’t change or deteriorate, the PC will never *NEED* to be upgraded if all you’re doing is comparing it to consoles. I had the same PC configuration for almost 4 years, my friend is pushing that now. We are playing new games like Battlefield 3 just fine… Well, I actually did upgrade my computer finally after those 4 years, but seriously, I saved enough money through those 4 years compared to console gamers since I didn’t need to buy a console IN ADDITION to my PC that I know I NEED to have for more than just gaming… Then with every game I saved anywhere from $10 to almost $60 since I got a few games through OnLive for $1: Saint’s Row 3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. But for hard copies I paid anywhere from $30-$50 per game, while the console versions were almost always $60 or more. I never had to pay for a DLC or patch, never had to pay a subscription to play my games online with other people like you do with one of the consoles (Xbox Live Gold), and lastly, I was able to sell the hardware I replaced in my upgrade that further off-set my expense. So in the end, even though now I have a PC that will last me another 4 years, I still ended up saving a whole lot of money compared to console gamers.
Again, I don’t have a problem if you like console gaming, but please stop trying to perpetuate the myth that it’s cheaper and better and blah blah blah, and just stick to saying that you prefer your games via a console. You don’t need to “justify” it by making up false reasons, it’s your money, it’s your decision. Simple as that.
Ken is right, that required upgrade is a myth.
I’d be happy to drop the whole debate in general, as long as you can control the other half of the PC gaming population. You seem like a reasonable, knowledgeable person, and I’ll admit then, I was wrong. But I’m still sticking to my opinion that most of the other PC gamers are elitests.
@Joe
I can’t “control” anyone, lol. But honestly, you just have to realize there’ll always be competition between groups of different preferences. You might consider PC gamers elitists, but console gamers are not completely innocent either. We have legitimate concerns when it comes to gaming due to overly lazy game developers who simply develop for consoles because their profit margins are higher there, and then they either just do a lazy (buggy) port to the PC or sometimes the PC doesn’t get the game at all. And whenever PC gamers express their dissatisfaction with the situation, console gamers will rally on about how PC gaming is dying, how game developers shouldn’t take the time to make a proper PC game because they claim PC’s have to be constantly upgraded, how expensive a gaming PC is, how console gaming is better since you can play on your HDTV, etc. etc. All are actually not valid arguments as I’ve already explained with the upgrading and initial costs argument, and almost all video cards now either have a HDMI output so you can use your HDTV to game with, or has adaptors that will allow you to use a HDMI cable to do the same. But they make those arguments anyway, which kind of makes PC gamers like myself feel a bit compelled to chime in about the facts behind the myths…
But either way, it’s pretty much a Ford versus Chevy argument. Everyone has their preferences, we can just keep it at that… Don’t let those on “the other side” bother you. Just treat it as a friendly competition.
I wasn’t really arguing about which is better, without a doubt, I know PC gaming is better. When I said control, I was more talking about the PC gamers that constantly rub it in our faces.
Also, I was gonna say, can’t you plug most PC’s into any HDTV now? lol
@Ken J,
I was referring to the investment, the initial price. Not the “bang for your buck”. I couldn’t speak about it when ps3/360 launched, I knew squat about pc gaming back then.
You’re right, pc gaming is cheaper… in the long run. To be honest idk how much it would cost to build one with equal performance to a console. But to the average joe, console is the way to go. I’ve had my pc since august 2011 and I’ve had more problem with my pc than my ps3 from 2008 and 360 2006 (got rid of it). Not everyone will have issues but I did, minor but an annoying inconvenience (curse you Origin!).
It all depends on how you look at it I guess. Until next gen, pc is my choice, but I still enjoy my ps3 a lot.
@ATG
But that’s my point, even the initial investment is less. Think about it, what are you typing on here on? Your PS3? Or your PC? How much did you pay for that PC? Now add that price to how much you paid for your PS3. You can’t just compare the price of the console to the price of a gaming PC since the gaming PC doesn’t ONLY replace the console, it replaces your… well… your PC… So you have to factor them both in.
And to be honest, I don’t remember how much my investment into my PC is prior to the last time I upgraded it before this last time, because that was well over 4 years ago, but I can tell you that it’s never a big investment. I think initially my PC cost me about $1100 to build, that’s from scratch. Then after that, I have just been upgrading every 4-5 years. And every time, it was only a few hundred dollars to upgrade, then subtract maybe $150-$200 from me selling my old hardware, so really, every time I upgraded I ended up spending like $200 or less. Factor in how I’ve never paid for any consoles from then, and you can see how much money I’ve saved doing it this way… I would say I started building my own PC maybe 15 years ago.
While the typical consumer will buy a crappy PC that they don’t game with for maybe $500-$600, then buy a console for like $200 back in the day. Then a few years down the road a new console is released, and they buy that for another $500+, then somewhere around there, they will need to buy another crappy non-gaming PC for another $400-$600. Then another console comes out years after that, that’s another $500+, then again with the new PC… For me, I simply upgrade my existing PC and am good for several years and don’t have to worry about anything else…
And I know what you’re talking about Origin, we all had problems with it at first, it was in Beta before, so it had bugs, but you cannot say you don’t encounter bugs in console games. My friend has an Xbox and it is nothing but problems. Before it used to overheat, so he bought a fan for it. Now it barely reads the discs he put in it. I honestly don’t have any problems with my PC at all. Even with Origin I only had very minor problems that were resolved within an hour of fiddling with it… But even then, it wasn’t the PC’s fault, it was just buggy programming on EA’s part…
And again, I have no problem with people who prefer to game on their consoles, I just have to point out that’s erroneous to assume that it’s cheaper than PC gaming, initial or in the long run. Is it easier? Yes, of course it is. I admit I am able to accomplish what I do with my PC and save money doing so because I have a bit of know-how…
Sorry for the long post, I am definitely a bit too wordy when it comes to talking techy things, lol. I think I try to explain too much…
Ack, I’m doing crazy bad math here, I think for the net expenses of upgrading, it’s more like $300 and under than $200 and under. Sorry… But still, my point stands, I definitely have saved well over that amount compared to a typical consumer who buys consoles and console games…
Well Ken, to be a smart ass, I WAS typing on my phone
@ATG
LMAO, I do that too actually. But you get my point.
Steam would be making all the right moves if this is true.
Valve has come a long way from a small developer of two people to one of the best game developers around, and now them possibly starting to develop consoles is absolutely amazing.
I think that this “console” will be a PC specifically designed from the ground up for gaming. It will be able to play PC games, specifically those from Steam and valve, among others. I think Valve may be trying to bridge the gap between PC gamers and Console Gamers. High-End Gaming PCs are thousands of dollars, but if Valve does this right we could get a High-End gaming PC for the price of a home console.
If that’s the case, I want one.
I hope this is true, I would totally buy this. I have steam but I also have a Mac so the titles are limited. Also digital distribution is the way to go
thats the greatest pile of bullsh*t ive heard in my life. this is like saying jcpenny is gonna start making cars.
Because no software company has ever gone in to console making before have they? Wait a minute I believe there was this little old company named Microsoft. Also how is a software company moving in to hardware even compariable to a jcpennys making cars, I would LOVE to hear you explain that logic. Please do tell.
he’s just a complete troll on everything here
Boy, you really never do some complaining, do you?
you are an idiot, give up, and stop typing hateful things that have no logical reasoning.
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-x51/fs or one of these, basically but (probably) without the ridiculous pricetag
Ok to jump off topic and go along witht he “hardcore gamer” bs, a hardcore gamer is someone who plays ALL GAMES no matter what system or company made the game regardless it being a FPS MMO RPG PLATFORMER MMORPG PUZZLE. Thats what a true hardcore gamer is.
Yeah, I don’t buy it. Charging no licensing fees AND allowing the console to use Origin etc. instead of Steam sounds like a pretty unprofitable business model. Not that many people WOULD use Origin instead of Steam, but still. A Steam console is a possibility, but some of these details sound like pipe dreams.
IDancethroughshadows just got burned by senor Craig. Honestly, I’ve seen this know-it-all PC fanboy post crape like this on damn near every post involving PC and console. I’d like to punch him in the face.
It is true the Hardcore gamer BS is getting really irritating. PC or Console whichever the choose to buy and use the most usually depends on what our friends are playing. The companies have been using the “Hardcore gamer” title to sell their products. The same concept with the lame and overpriced Modern Warfare accessories (which suck by the way). Honestly I would get a PC dedicated for video games if it wasn’t out of my price range. Till I can purchase a PC to play games, I will have to stick to consoles until then. P.S. to all you PC gamers downtalking consoles, shut it you guys are the worst trash talkers and trolls out there. The 5% of you PC gamers trash talking are making the other 95% look bad.
Hear, hear. I’m sure we Ranters are all pretty avid gamers, regardless of our platform of choice. Just leave it at that.
I’m just wondering how they plan to make money from a console. The hardware can’t be too powerful (expensive) or the price will turn people away. Without license fees they can’t sell the console at a loss and make up on games later.
Another advantage of consoles is optimization. The hardware may be old (less powerful) but every console has the same hardware so games can be optimized for that hardware. If multiple companies can manufacture the machine then you may get differences in hardware preventing optimization (like PCs).
What operating system will this console use (Most PC games use Windows). If the console is just a Windows box then it’s really just a PC being called a console. Developing a new OS, the hardware to run it, and making it backwards compatible with Steam and other PC games sounds very expensive. The only justification I can see for Valve doing this is increased sales on Steam, but that would have to be a lot of new sales.
@Argamow
Um… yah… that’s wrong… You can optimize any game for any platform. No matter how much you “optimize” a game for a console, it’ll never magically be better looking than something running on much better hardware. You make a game using whatever version DirectX you want to support with whatever features, and any PC using a video card that supports that version of DirectX will be able to run it. At what level will depend on which version of the card the PC gamer has and the other specs of his/her PC. But that’s why there are always graphics settings in just about all PC games that let you scale up or down the graphics to run the best on their PC. You can optimize a game to the fullest extent possible for the consoles, it will never look as good as a game optimized with DirectX 10-11 features in mind unless the developer just really sucks at making games… no control over that…
Maybe this is why we’re not hearing any news on the next Half Life game? THey want to make it for their new console? I mean, what better way than to get initial sales than to advertise it with the next Half Life???
Anyway, this sounds interesting, because it sounds more like a PC, but I wonder how much it would cost if it had that kind of processing power, and most likely you won’t be able to upgrade it… But if the price is competitive with the consoles, this might be a good idea. Since you can save money on the games since OnLive always has some kind of promotion, and PC games are normally cheaper anyway…
I’m tempted to purchase the old games before Half Life 3, if it grabs my attention I want it. PC has opened me up to so much more gaming and different genres.
Hey, I can actually gift you HL2 and Episode 1 via Steam since I had both already before I bought The Orange Box. So technically I have extra copies… I’m gonna message you via Battlelogger to get your info if you want… On here I’m afraid someone can pose as you and give me their info and I’ll end up gifting the games to them instead, lol.
Trust me, once you play HL2′s campaign, and then Episode 1, you’ll realize what all of the craze is about. Those are AMAZING games…
I’ve played through HL2 like 3-4 times from beginning to end, and Episode 1 and 2 2-3 times each. I can’t freakin’ wait for the next installment…
Now there’s a good point, which I haven’t seen mentioned yet in this PC-vs.-console debate. The PC’s controls allow it to handle more genres than consoles can. RTS, point-and-click adventure, city builder, flight sim, MMORPG; all better on the PC (and all dying/dead genres, aside from MMOs… doh). And of course, most big PC games/ports these days also have gamepad support, so the genres that play better with a gamepad (racers and third person shooters, imo) aren’t necessarily any worse on the PC than on consoles.
The “genres” point is, I think, more relevant than the “controls” point by itself, and much more relevant than the “superior graphics” point.
For the “better with a gamepad” category, don’t forget fighting games, sports games, and even flying games. But obviously a joystick will beat out both gamepad and keyboard/mouse and a wheel will beat them both too. But you can get a joystick or a driving wheel for both PC and consoles, so that doesn’t really add to the comparison, lol.
Personally, the keyboard/mouse is only superior for first-person shooters, RPG’s, and RTS games.
Personally I love first-person shooters the most and seriously, for me, there’s no way I can enjoy them with the gamepad…
Are there really console joysticks? I’ve never seen one. As for fighting games, honestly I prefer the keyboard for those. Although I’m not a fighting game fan in general anyway, so I’m probably wrong about that. I also forgot 3D platformers for the “better with a gamepad” category.
I’m with you about FPS controls, for sure. I occasionally see some article that mentions people who prefer FPS’s with a gamepad, and it just blows my mind. With the Wii or Move, that’s one thing, but with the two thumbsticks? I can’t believe anyone would prefer that to a mouse & keyboard.
@Androol
Actually, I’m just assuming that they must have flight joysticks for consoles too, I guess maybe they don’t??
But I don’t know if I am on the same boat as you with the 3rd person games or not. I actually used to think that they must be better with a gamepad too, but recently, I played Batman: Arkham City all the way through on my friend’s Xbox, and then I played it all the way through on my PC, and honestly, everything, from the fighting to the gliding around the city, to the obstacles and puzzles, were easier on my PC with the keyboard and mouse…
And about people who claim to prefer shooters with gamepads, they are just trying to find an excuse to reason that consoles are better than PC’s for those games. There’s absolutely no way you’ll be more precise and quicker on the movements with a gamepad as compared to the mouse for aiming… NO WAY.
Ken:
Yeah, you’re right, third person stuff is kind of hit-or-miss on the PC. I’m sure the mouse and keyboard are superior in some cases, but they’re inferior in others. I think it depends on the individual game.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401119,00.asp
Hoping this(^^) is true. i7 with an nVidia GPU would make things interesting.
PC games are not cheaper…Not sure how people thought this is true. At launch games are the same $50 or $60 for each platform. Steam is just a company that have sales on games often.. Which is why steam users see games like L4D2 going for $5 marked down from $20 every couple months. Main reason why you see games going down in price is because software developers/retailers want to continue to make sales.
As far as people complaining about consoles being cheaper than computers…I’ve gotten emails from Newegg advertising computer hardware bundles going for $250-$320 that wouldn’t have a problem running most of the current games at a reasonable framerate for a greater experience than consoles..
@NoTrigger
Um, people think this is true because it is… I preordered Battlefield 3 (PC) via Amazon for $43. I preordered Batman: Arkham City (PC) for less than $40 then it was only $20 because I had some credits from buying other games… Just in case you didn’t catch it, I didn’t have to wait a few months for the price to go down, these two games I pointed out because they were PREORDERED meaning I got them on RELEASE day at that price… How much did they go for on the consoles? Just curious…
i prefer my d i c k over mouse/keyboard or gamepad to me its just better.
lol. To each, his own.
This seems like such an odd concept at first. The draw of Steam in general has always been the easy availability of it. Especially with the mobile move recently, Valve has demonstrated their main business model to be aimed towards accessibility and open acceptance to hardcore and casual gamers alike.
On the other hand, I’ve heard this move compared to the Android approach, where customized devices can be made to accomodate different demographics, and gives developers an unlimited arsenal of features to choose from. From that perspective, it does make some sense, and actually makes me a bit surprised that no company has tried that approach before in the console war. Okay, Valve, you’ve piqued my interest. Let’s see what you’re planning.
b*******, but a great idea, surely one which Gabe will consider later.