Editorial: Why I Won't Be Buying A Steam Machine

Why I Won't Be Buying A Steam Machine

There are a lot of things I love about games consoles. They're simple to set up, easy to figure out how to use, and often offer a simple gaming experience free of the hassles that PC gaming can sometimes force on its fans.

There are also plenty of things I love about PC gaming. I love the customizable experience, the ability to mod games, and the increased graphical and physics capabilities of the hardware.

Because I love both of these things, you would think that a Steam machine would be a natural fit for me.

Unfortunately, it is anything but.

When Valve first started their Steam machine initiative I had high hopes for it. Sure, there were issues that were visible from space with the concept of using numerous manufacturers and variable hardware, and with the fact that a large number of PC games still don't support Linux, but I felt that Valve had plenty of time to fix these issues or circumvent them, and if any company could do so, it would be the creators of Steam itself, the number one digital distribution platform for games in the world.

Then the prototypes started coming out.

Brands like Alienware. iBuyPower. Phoenix. And they were wanting to sell underpowered hardware at premium rates, or overpowered hardware at even MORE premium rates, all shoved into tiny ITX cases.

Steam machines have a simple goal: to allow gaming PCs to compete with the console market for living room space.

So far, every Steam machine fails miserably at this. The question is: why?

The simple answer is that rather than taking the advantages of each platform -- simplicity and low expense of consoles, adaptability and massive library of PC -- they have opted to take the disadvantages of each platform instead -- the limited adaptability and library restrictions of a console combined with the expense and opaqueness of setup of a PC, creating a perfect storm of bad concept.

The goal of the Steam machine is to compete with the consoles, no matter what anyone else might claim. If the goal was to expand the reach of home theater PC's, then there are cheaper methods; if the goal was to build pure gaming PC's, then there was no need for the Steam machine initiative. As such, Steam machines have to tackle 3 core elements where consoles succeed that gaming PCs are typically seen to fail: simplicity of understanding the platform's capabilities, affordability, and user friendliness.

Let's look at the first of these three areas: simplicity of understanding the platform's capabilities.

Consoles are simple. You plug them in, and you play games. There isn't any need to understand cores this or RAM that; you hook it to your TV and go. Some have different games, some look a bit better, but for the average user the graphics really aren't the most important part; it's the games library that draws you in.

Steam machines have the capability of having a massive library, but that can be both a blessing and a curse. Navigating digital PC releases means scouring through going on three decades worth of software, and not every PC can run every game. Heck, not every Steam machine will be capable of running every game, and not just because of hardware limitations: the Steam OS itself, while commendable (and a worthwhile push for Linux compatibility in games, something more developers need to embrace,) naturally restricts many of the big AAA titles from being playable on the platform. People who are considering a Steam machine versus a console will in many cases be swayed by the simplest of arguments, and the fact that your console can play the next Arkham game and your three times more expensive Steam machine can't is a worthy one to consider.

Steam machines as a platform are opaque in terms of what you can do with that whirring box you spent all your money on.

Which brings us to issue two: affordability.

Consoles are cheap. There are many reasons for this, of course. Consoles typically have custom OSes that allow them to do more with their limited hardware than a more complicated computer could, and are built to such strict standards that they can push what they have more easily and consistently, giving the end user a very good cost to performance ratio.

PC's, on the other hand....

A gaming PC doesn't have to be expensive. For less than 600 USD a savvy shopper can build a gaming PC that trounces even the most powerful console hardware peripherals and all. On top of that the system will also let them do their taxes, edit home movies, and just about anything else they want to do on it. So, if a PC can be built like that so cheaply, why are so many of the Steam boxes pushing well north of the 1k mark in price?

The problem comes when you consider the difference between competitive hardware and POWERFUL hardware. In the PC gaming world, there's always something better around the corner, and hardware manufacturers are naturally going to want to go for the part that gives them an edge over the competition. Combine that with the need to fit it all into a small form factor, console-style, and you're looking at the price for Steam machines increasing terribly. On top of THAT is Steam OS's continued preference for Intel and nVidia hardware, which are typically more expensive than AMD alternatives, further inflating costs. Even FURTHER hurting the cost is the fact that the variable hardware means parts typically can't just be bulk ordered: if a part can be changed, it can't be standardized, hurting the systems when they try to balance capability versus compact design and end up losing out in overall price.

Steam machines are simply too expensive for their own good, and so long as they try to dictate their specifications for a PC gamer market rather than orienting toward an entry-level or console enthusiast market, they'll remain too expensive. Even then, they'll never have the same value/performance ratio of consoles due to manufacturers not being able to rely on software sales and mass produced units to subsidize costs.

Finally, the last issue: user friendliness.

Consoles have a controller. This controller may or may not have doodads that are unique to it, but every controller can be expected to have certain features, namely a smattering of face buttons, one or more methods to move your avatar or icon in games around, and that's basically it. Controllers haven't changed much, if at all, since the PlayStation DualShock came out, with the 4 face buttons, two function buttons, four shoulder buttons, and even clicking control sticks being the standard that every console gamer expects and can adapt to from one platform to the next.

The Steam machines have that. They also have Valve's very cool but somewhat strange controller. And keyboards. And mice. And bluetooth sync for a whole variety of other things, and unique peripherals that have appeared over the last 20 years that users still have lying around, and new types coming out.

Consoles have set hardware, with little in the way of visual customization, and games say clearly if they are for that system or not.

Steam machines have a marketplace where MOST of the games will work, but not all of them. Tweaks, edits, and more will have to be made. Nothing will work ideally right out of the box (or off the page, as it were,) and your performance will vary depending on which machine you have. Plus, unlike consoles, those peripherals you have might not always work for every last game, either.

These elements combine to make Steam machines less user-friendly than consoles too. Heck, in a lot of ways less user-friendly than the average laptop or desktop PC, because the implications of the Steam machine are that it SHOULD be simple and user-friendly to use.

Add all of this together, and you have a product that is going to be slaughtered in the marketplace due to a lack of standardization or even unification of concept.

I love consoles.

I love PCs.

I don't care at all for what the Steam machine, their love child, is shaping up to be.

And that saddens me greatly.