Marvin T. Martian wrote on Apr 10, 2012, 16:47:
Another head in the sand post from one (like Capps) who doesn't have a clue.

Acleacius wrote on Mar 15, 2012, 23:03:
This is bullshit and so is bethesda.

Obsidian had less than half the resources and time bethesda took on Fallout 3. Fallout New Vegas was a better game by all accounts for the limited time and money they had budgeted.

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 08:45:
Also in 1:03+ you can see the right dude playing with a tablet, or phone.. doing something that is not part of the interview anyway.. or maybe he is reading his lines.. but looks very unprofessional ;p

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Mar 9, 2012, 01:36:

Kosumo wrote on Mar 9, 2012, 00:30:
So they have gone F2P?

Hope that works out for them.

If I remember right, they made more money off their sales on GoG than they did off of steam.

Techie714 © wrote on Mar 8, 2012, 21:12:
The Witcher 2 > Skyrim

* Referring to the storyline

Dev wrote on Mar 4, 2012, 18:34:

eunichron wrote on Mar 4, 2012, 17:58:
With those proposed specs I doubt they could build a capable rig for less than $400, and highly doubt they could sell it for less than $500. The next generation of consoles is going to catch up in terms of graphics (at least DX11.1 standard) anyway. The rumor claims that it is going to use mobile graphics, I think the biggest move Valve could make is use an MXM based GPU (if I recall there is an MXM GTX 580m board), allowing users to buy cheap upgrades through Steam so that their system can stay current to PC specs.

The consoles are cheaper because they are crappier.

The margins are far less than $100 on most computers in that price range and if valve was smart, they would sell it at cost (they'd more than make up the difference selling steam games through it). IMHO It would be silly to build a mobile based one, the parts are more expensive and less capable (similar mobile model names are usually a mere 50% of the speed of desktop). They'd be better off just building a smaller desktop form factor.

As for cost, its less than one might think.

$200 for i7 CPU (yes, they can be found for this price)
$50 for a name brand micro ATX 1155 mobo (only need one x16 slot, and its small physically)
$35 for 8 gb ram
$80 for 2tb hdd (prices are finally getting down near what they used to be for hdds)
$130 for a radeon 6870, which is MORE than fast enough to game at 1080p

Huh, would you look at that. We are only up to $495 for all the core components. And those are the prices I as an end buyer can achieve, presumably valve could get them for less in quantity.

Prez wrote on Mar 4, 2012, 15:54:
...but it is so hard to understand that people who like a company's products or services generally want said company to make lots of money so that they can continue to make the stuff they like for the foreseeable future?

Fibrocyte wrote on Mar 4, 2012, 11:45:
If done right, the SteamBox will sell well and increase Valve's profits substantially. I'd be surprised if they didn't do this right.

Jivaro wrote on Mar 3, 2012, 23:49:

^Drag0n^ wrote on Mar 3, 2012, 20:18:
I actually think this is brilliant, in a way: for practically ZERO investment, you can drop a huge library of *PC* games on the TV.

For what an xBox costs right now, you could have a more than compitent mid-grade PC hooked up to a TV.

Honestly? Done right, this could be the second salvo in the battle to keep the PC relevant.

Not a bad thing at all.

^D^

I knew somewhere in all these posts would be one "positive" post that made sense. +1, totally agree. Not that it couldn't go wrong...of course it could, but I don't see what is wrong with Valve testing the waters. Done wrong, its forgotten like the Nintendo Power Glove and Atari Jaguar, done right....it could be pretty damn cool.