The Steam Box is Destined to fail By Definition.

Hey everyone, I know it's kind of died down since CES, but lets talk about the Steam box, Steam machine, a home video game console that runs Steam, and why I think it's destined to fail. Now before you jump to conclusions about "oh you're just a PC gaming hater," or "you can't see beyond the big 3," or whatever. First off, I'm not a PC hater. I don't like PC elitist fanboys who ridicule console gaming and say that PC gaming is the only way to truly enjoy video games. I respect PC gaming for what it is; a way to play video games where one can make the game look and play as good as technologically possible during that month. From a hardware standpoint, it's also the most expensive if you want to have it look and play as good as technologically possible during that month. Anything beyond that, you need to either upgrade or compromise. Personally, I just prefer console gaming; no compatibility issues, no worries about being able to run the game with your current "rig," only need to upgrade once every 10 years, etc. As for me not looking beyond the big 3, I have an OUYA. I love my OUYA. It is exactly what I expect it to be; a cheap mini-console full of indi-games that can side load android apps. It doesn't have the big titles like CoD or Mass Effect or Skyrim or any of those. I accept it for what it is. I accept all video game consoles, including you PC, for what they are, and that's where I have trouble seeing how a steam console would be successful.

OK, so lets give a little back story. As you probably know, there are PC gamers and console gamers. Many people play both PC and consoles, because they each have their trade offs.
On PC, you can have the most up to date hardware so you can play your games at 300 frames per second at 10k resolution. However, to do that, you need to pay through the nose to get the hardware capable of doing that. Steam from Valve has many sales to offset the cost, so a game that was $60 is now $10 and stuff like that, but there's a trade off to that too because now the game is essentially locked to your account for good. There are some ways around that like gifting, but at the time of writing this, you can't buy a used Steam game from gamestop. DRM, but people accept it due to the sales and the fact that an upgraded PC can still play the old games.
Now on consoles, things are essentially the opposite. On consoles, the hardware is the same hardware for however long the console generation is. However, that means that you don't need to upgrade the hardware to play the latest games, no comparability issues. The developers don't always drop their prices, but then there are used games, aka no DRM. Microsoft tried to do DRM with the XBOX ONE, and people hated it and it was looking so bad for them that they reversed their decision. Consoles aren't always reverse compatible, but the owner always has the option to just leave their last console connected or just sell it.
So the question is, do you want ultra high graphics and cheap games at the cost of expensive and quickly obsolete hardware and DRM, or do you want no DRM and 1 time investment hardware at the cost of relatively consistant graphics for 10 or so years.
Now some people might be wondering "where's the mention of keyboard and mouse vs controller?" No, not going there. That's just personal preference. Personally I find keyboard and mouse very awkward, others find it very precise and optimal. If I did non-point and click PC gaming, I would probably still use a controller.

OK so what does this have to do with the Steam machine? Well I can only see negatives of both without the necessary counter positives. PC gamers don't necessarily like console gaming due to the drawbacks, and console gamers don't necessarily like PC gaming due to the drawbacks. I'm going to go through all the possible combinations of ways to make a Steam machine I can think of, and why I think it will fail.

Model 1: "hardware just like consoles; you can't upgrade the hardware, it just plugs into your TV, and it plays your Steam library. Priced similar to a console."
OK, so this sounds very similar to a normal console. You can't upgrade the hardware, it's priced around the same as the others, and you're stuck with it until the next generation. Well that kind of fully defeats the purpose of PC gaming right there. PC gamers want to upgrade their hardware. They might like it for a month, but after that, they'll just go back to their PC with the most up to date hardware. But it play's your entire Steam library on your TV. Yeah until the hardware becomes obsolete and now you run into compatibility issues. You think the devs are going to make a "PC Steam" flavor and a "Console Steam" flavor, I highly doubt it. That could go one of 2 ways. When you buy the game you instantly get access to both flavors so 2 copies of the game for the price of 1, well that's a lot of extra work. Sure with the sales you get it for dirt cheap, but they've already been out for a while, they don't have to remake the game. Then there's the "you buy it again," and that's not going to go over well with the consumers.
Now at CES, there were talks about different companies making different models of a Steam Machine the same way different companies make different models of PCs, so hardware upgrading is possible with this, but that means buying a completely new $400 console every time you want to upgrade instead of the $50 ram card or $100 graphics card. Yeah, no. I've heard of people spending thousands of dollars upgrading their PCs for gaming, but this would mean spending tens of thousands of dollars upgrading. I just don't see it happening.

Model 2: "like model 1, but you can upgrade the hardware with proprietary parts."
OK, little less like a console, little more like a PC. You can now upgrade the hardware to get better performance but it's all proprietary like console add-ons. So what's the problem here? Well this means that you don't have the freedom of part selection like with PCs. If your PC has parts from brand X, but brand Y has better parts, you can change them and get better performance or whatever made them better. It's also got the free market in it's favor so if the performance between 2 brands is the same but one is cheaper, you can get the cheaper. However, if it's proprietary, you're screwed in terms of quality diversity and price diversity. With the PSP, I could use any brand of Memory Stick Pro Duo I wanted, and I have 3 different memory sticks each a different brand. However with the PS Vita, Sony went completely proprietary, so now instead of a $20 32-gig micro-SD card, it's $100 for a 16-gig proprietary memory card, and if those memory cards suck, well you're screwed. If the Steam machine used proprietary upgradable parts, I would expect similar price gouging like with the PSP/Vita example.

Model 3: "like models 1 and 2, but uses standard computer parts."
Soooo, a dedicated PC with HDMI out. With this one, it's almost exactly the same as the gamer's normal PC. They would essentially have 2 PCs, with the only difference being that one can't do all the other things that their PC can do, like word processing. If it could do the other things like word processing, then it's exactly the same as their PC, and unless they want to have 1 PC upstairs and 1 PC downstairs or something like that, then there's absolutely no reason to buy the Steam machine since it does everything that their PC does.

"But what about the console gamer? The steam machine would act like a gateway to the glorious PC master race." Ummm, no. Remember when I talked about the drawbacks of PC gaming, like DRM and high price for hardware. Console gamers don't want that. When the PS3 launched, the console gamers didn't want it because of the high price. Part of the reason the Vita is hurting is because of the proprietary memory cards. The main reason it's hurting is because Sony isn't marketing it well, but the proprietary memory cards are an issue. They also don't like the DRM. Remember the XBOX ONE reveal and the DRM on all games; I've heard it compared to Steam, Model 1 of the Steam machine was essentially the XBOX ONE's original concept minus the kinect. Console gamers don't accept DRM, they don't want to worry about hardware upgrades, especially proprietary ones. SegaCD and 32X anyone? Proprietary hardware upgrades that weren't all that great. They might buy a model 3, but at that point they're already crossing over to PC gaming and that will just be their first gaming PC. In order for a Steam machine to appeal to console gamers, it would need to not have DRM and have hardware that will last for an entire generation, and with that you revolutionize Steam to the point that console gaming in general becomes completely irrelevant because now you took away the drawbacks of PC gaming, essentially meaning that the Steam machine killed itself.

I just honestly don't see who a Steam machine would appeal to. You aren't going to get the console gamer because it doesn't have the benefits of console gaming. You aren't going to get the PC gamer because it doesn't have the benefits of PC gaming without getting ridiculous. It's not even in the same league as the OUYA. I doubt upon initial boot up the Steam machine will say "thank-you for buying us, we made it easy for you to open up and tinker with, doing so will not void the warranty," nor will it cost $100 and give you the ability to sideload android apps. I just can't imagine who would buy a Steam machine outside of collectors like me.
Yes, at some point I would probably buy a Steam machine, because I am a collector and I like consoles. I didn't buy my OUYA because I wanted an open source console or a digital distribution indi-game console, I wanted this will-be obscure piece of video game history while it's still cheap. Well this has been happy gamer, and remember, if you try to please everyone, you please no one.

The Uncanny Valley of Graphics, Happy Gamer Rambles

What happens when graphics are so good they almost look realistic. Well this is what happened.

So I went to my local mall and they just put in a Microsoft Store. Being the fan of windows that I am, I decided I'd check it out. It was pretty cool, and they had on display an XBOX ONE demo on a 60 inch TV. Love them or hate them, admit it, you'd try out any console or PC if it was on a 60 inch TV. I have to say, the graphics are stunning. In fact, they're so good, they're absolutely terrible and hurt my eyes. So what do I mean by that? I'm talking about "The Uncanny Valley."

For those of you who don't know, the uncanny valley is "when human features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers;" according to wikipedia. Basically, it means that, in terms of graphics, things look so good but since it isn't an actual video shot on a video camera, it looks terrible. You brain wants to think that it's real, but since there's subtle nuances that don't look real, you perceive it as ugly.

Now how does this relate to the XBOX ONE? Well as I said earlier, the graphics are amazing. These were like 1080p 60 FPS, or whatever. Everything moved so smoothly. Everything had such detail. However, because it still looked enough like a video game, the "hyper realistic" graphics confused my brain and I concluded that it looked terrible.

Now you PC gamers might be thinking "ha, console peasant, that's what you get for not using PC quality graphics." Well ya know what, I'd probably say the same thing about your precious PC graphics. My guess, they're even further down in the valley. "But...the resolution, the frame rate, the textures, they just look so amazing." Yes, and that's the point. They do look amazing, but the more amazing they look, the more off put I am because it still doesn't look like I'm playing real life. Keep your amazing graphics, I'll stick to "it looks so fake that it doesn't look bad."

Now wait, maybe I'm just being to hard on it. I mean I liked The Last of Us and that looked pretty real right? Well...not quite. With Last of Us, they were going for "realistic physics and animations," not "realistic looking visuals." The visuals, though striking with how well they captured human emotions and movements, wasn't trying to make Joel or Ellie look like actual humans, if you get what I'm saying. It looked like a really well done animated movie with a realistic art style, not an animated movie that put so much emphasis on trying to look like live action that it looked bad. It's hard to explain. Basically, it felt real without trying to look real.

I may just be old fashioned. Really, at the time of writing this, I only started gaming on an HDTV 2 years prior. Before then, I played on a 26 inch, 4:3 aspect ratio, tube TV. I still do when I play old school because the old consoles look bad on my HDTV, but that's a ramble for another day. It could have also been the TV. I know when I go to stores like Costco or Sears, they have a movie playing and the TV has a smoothing effect that like adds more frames or something. I don't really know how it works, but I know it makes the movie look like the foreground is completely separate from the back ground and things don't move right. More uncanny valley right there. But it really could be that 1080p 60 fps just looks bad. Well this has been happy gamer and you can keep your ugly 60 frames per second, 1080p resolution. I'll stick with 720p 30 fps where things aren't in the uncanny valley.

PS: As for the rest of the XBOX, I'm very meh. The controller does feel really nice. The interface kind of sucks. They didn't have the Kinect on, but that things just looks terrible. I wouldn't be caught dead with that sitting on my TV stand simply because it looks bad. The UI felt very gimped without the Kinect. I played Forza 5, did not like the physics. The game was in manual. Turning was way to complicated I kept hitting the wall. I am not impressed.

Happy Gamer, I don't like PC elitists and their arguments.

Fanboys suck, and most of the time, they're ridiculous arguments get refuted easily because of how bad they are. But PC elitist fanboys don't seem to get refuted so easily. Well, here's my rebuttal.

Greetings world. Like many of my ramblings, this started in google plus. This time, it was one of my friends making a comment about how I bash PC gaming mainly saying "I like console gaming, but at the moment, PC is just easier on the budget." Well, here's my rambling response. Enjoy the rant.

If done properly, that may be true. You're a computer guy though, so you know all the things that are required to make certain games run. My guess is you built your own computer from scratch, and if not initially, you did through a number of different upgrades that you essentially built your computer. Me, I just have my standard issue HP laptop and desktop tower. My brother played various different PC games on the desktop and they suffered super frame rate drop due to compatibility issues. I've tried playing some PC exclusives like Mighty Quest For Epic Loot and had loads of frame drops and overheating. Personally, I'll pay a little extra to make sure that there's no compatibility issues and the ability to proudly display my physical collection. Plus, though I haven't crunched the numbers, in the long run I'm pretty sure console gaming is cheaper if done right, and legally. Pirated games don't count as "cheaper," and I've heard people say "well PC games are so much cheaper because it's so much easier to pirate them." Doesn't count. Everything is "cheaper" when you steal it. Piracy is bad, don't do it.

 

My main beef with PC gaming is the PC elitist fanboys who are all "PC is the master race; my gaming machine makes the games for your gaming machine; the graphics, framerate, and mouse and keyboard controls are so much better; hail valve."

 

1. Mouse and keyboard being better than controller is just an opinion. Some games like Roller Coaster Tycoon, Sims City, Myst, and other point and clicks are better with mouse and keyboard, but platformers, my favorite genera, suck with mouse and keyboard and are better with controllers.

 

2. Graphics and framerate don't really matter so long as they aren't so bad that they impede gameplay. Framerate and graphics being so bad they impede gameplay has happened, but I've only ever really seen it happen on PC due to compatibility issues and rarely on consoles because every unit of that console is almost identical and the devs know that and work within the parameters of the hardware.

 

3. As for the "my machine makes the games for your machine," yeah and my professor taught your professor, but your professor doesn't have a hard to understand accent. I don't see how that's a reason to chose the accent over native English. To each his own, but when I get the chance to point out PC fanboy misinformation, I do.

 

Plus, if steam sales are what makes PC gaming cheap, I play the "used games" card, where the games  are equally discounted.

 

If you like to play on PC, I don't care. My issue is the PC elitists that ridicule anyone who plays on consoles. Fanboys suck. They make everyone else in the fandom look bad. Don't fanboy. Happy gamer signing off, and don't be a fanboy.

A second look at "day 1" DLC

I used to hate "day 1" DLC, but now I'm looking at things slightly differently.

So I was watching "Address the Sess" from Rev3 gaming and Adam Sessler and he brought up an interesting fact about "day 1" DLC, something I haven't thought about.

Now if you don't know, I am very critical of "day 1" DLC, and so you know, "day 1" DLC doesn't necessarily have to be released on the day the game is released. I consider DLC "day 1" if it was developed along side the game specifically intended to not be released as part of the full game. I am very critical of this because from companies like Capcom, it's used to nickel and dime the consumer and try to capitalize on used games. My argument, "the game wouldn't end up on a gamestop shelf if you give the consumer more bang for their buck and deliver a game that is worth $70 and only charge them $60, instead of selling $50 worth of content for $60 and then selling the other $20 worth of content to them for $20 and calling it 'DLC.'" That right there goes against all marketing logic according to my into to marketing class, and is a primary reason why Capcom is close to dead. The other reason is "no love for the blue bomber," but that's not what this is about.

Anyways, Sessler brought up a good point about DLC and game prices. In the US, new game prices are fairly fixed at $60. In other countries and regions, game prices are a lot more varied. However, if you release a game for more than $60, "well that's crazy, I won't buy it." His example was Skyrim. I haven't played it yet so I can't speak from experience, but I plan to eventually. Anyways, Sessler said that "a game like Skyrim, it's easily worth $100, so I wouldn't mind paying more for more, but because of game prices, it needs to be $60, so they cut out $30 worth of content, sell you the $30 worth as DLC, and you still get an awesome game."

I gotta admit, I haven't really thought of it that way. Not everyone who does "day 1" DLC is being Capcom and EA about it, where "oh we need to send updates and patches and maintain the online servers, and developing the game is just so expensive, and with used games not giving us money for the sale, we need to get the money somehow." Sometimes, game developers make a game that's worth $100 or more, but because of the market price for all new games is semificially $60, they have to cut out some so they aren't undervaluing their games. Sure I'd love to get $100 worth of content for $60, who wouldn't. Well not the developers. I know if I made a game that I know was worth $100, I wouldn't want to give it to people for $60 right from the start. I'm undervaluing my game by 40%. After a year, sure, knock 40% off, let me get some of the hold outs, but not from the start. However, the US game market dictates that "New games are $60, no exceptions, unless it's under $60." And I'm not saying "I put so much work and time and effort that I deserve $100 for this game even though it's only objectively worth $50," I mean actual "this game is so objectively good, I would be practically giving it away at $60." So yes, I see where some developers are coming from.

However, this still troubles me, because even though they are selling you maybe a little over $60 worth of content after the DLC cuts, I'm still bothered by the fact that part of the game was cut out and is released as DLC. I'd rather pay more in the first place and not have to buy it later primarily because of future gamers who weren't able to get the consoles when they were initially released.
I 20 years old at the time of posting. I have an Atari 2600 that I bought at a garage sale. My Atari is probably older than I am. I can still buy games for it, thanks to used games, and I can expect to get the full game when I buy the cartridges. 25 years later, what about the guy that find an XBOX 360 at a garage sale and want to collect retro XBOX 360 games? Servers for online PS2 games released 12 years ago are already gone. Servers for XBOX Live for 360 and PSN for PS3 aren't going to be up forever. In 20-30 years, I expect DLC support for XBOX 360 and PS3 to be gone. How will future generations enjoy the full game once the servers are no longer supported? Emulators? *raspberry fart* Emulators are stupid and only cheaters use emulators. Real gaming is done on the original console, with the original controller and original game cartridge/disk. HD remakes/virtual console releases? That might work for some games, but not every game gets a remake/re-release. Of all the amazing games released on the NES, SNES, N64, Master System, Genesis, Atari, etc, I'm going to guess that maybe 15-20% have had re-releases. So the only way to get those gems is by buying the used cartridges/disks. I pity the future generations of gamers who won't be able to enjoy the full games because of DLC.

Well that's enough rambling for today. Until next time, game and be happy.

Greetings Gamers

I'm tired of Pokematic and Catholiccontriversy getting their own places and I'm stuck sharing with them with no place to call my own, so I'm making a place to call my own.

 Hey eveyone, Happy Gamer here, and for those of you who don't know me, well blame Pokematic and Catholiccontriversy. For about 3 years now, Catholiccontriversy and Pokematic have had their own private sections of the internet. Catholiccontriversy has youtube, Pokematic has metacafe and his adventure blog, but I've been forced to share Dailymotion and the video site with them with no place to call my own. Sure, it didn't help that I wasn't creating content, but maybe I would have if I had a place to call my own.

Well, welcome to my tree house. Here' it's only me, Happy Gamer. Maybe I'll let Catholiccontriversy and Pokematic make cameos like they let me do at their places, but here's my spot. Mine.

So what am I going to post you may ask. Well one thing I've found myself doing on Google Plus is posting these long winded ramblings that just seem to go on forever. I don't know how well they're received by my friends, but I know I fall subject to "to long, didn't read" when browsing G+. So, to clean up my friend's feeds, I'm now going to be posting those long winded posts here. I hope you enjoy.

Well this has been Happy Gamer signing off. Game on and have fun. (I'm thinking about changing my sign off. I'll be posting new attempts until I find something I like.)