What I think would help is some set of standards that would let people create "PC Consoles". On the one hand, these are "no apology" consoles that absolutely appeal to the hardcore gamer that would otherwise use a PC. On the other hand, you ought to be able to pick one up at Target and not need to be a hardcore system builder to use it.
So I'm thinking someone starts a "PC Console Consortium" that does the following:
- Come up with a good name for the specs (similar to the old 3DO idea or the "THX" certification. It needs to have a marketable name.)
- Establish the proper bylaws and rules for the standardization process, including overall version levels, RFC-type specifications, etc.
- Come up with specs and reference designs / hardware for:
* Form factor of mother board
* Minimum number and preferred placement of ports, indicators, controls, and drive bays (if any)
* Minimum feature set (e.g. WiFi, DirectX 10, etc.)
* Standard OS image details and reference image (hopefully Linux)
* Living Room interface (Steam Big Picture mode should conform by fiat, we need those games)
* Reference controller designs and interface (should also allow use of XBox and PS3 controllers)
* etc
The way I see it, it should be possible to have the convenience of a console with the upgradability of a PC.
Lastly - and it's so important I put this separately - we need a way to take the "fiddle factor" out of PC games. Gamers shouldn't have to tweak anything when running on a spec-compliant system. They can if they want to, but it should be totally unnecessary for 95% of gamers.
To do this, I propose we standardize on some way to exactly report the system configuration. I'm thinking something like the Windows 7 scoring system. The idea is that the online stores will know ahead of time whether a game could even be played on your system. Also, when games run, they should automatically configure themselves with the optimum settings and resolution for your system (and TV or other display device).
Put simply, the "big picture vision" here is pretty simple: it's a box that looks and acts a lot like the XBox 360. The interface is just as simple. There are just as many features. The games run and play without headache. Controllers are just as nice (no more $10 "PC gamepads"). The entire experience looks like a console (no "seeing Linux or Windows boot first"). It's branded like a console. It's purchased like a console.
BUT...
It's buildable, upgradable (optionally depending on manufacturer), and "tinkerable" just like a PC. You do so at your own risk, of course, but the standard should be designed with this in mind.
EDIT:
Here's an idea that would be far in the future but would be cool. "GCPC" specs could include a new type of GPU interface. It would still be standard PCIe with power, but it would NOT include interface headers. Instead, standard video ports would be included in the motherboard standard (HDMI + Thunderbolt perhaps). If the chipset includes integrated graphics, it would use it. However, if a user plugs in one of these "headless GPUs", video signal would be directly routed to it. This would give the back of the console a cleaner, more standardized look while still allowing upgradability.
The back of the console should LOOK like the back of a console, NOT the back of a standard PC.
Another idea is to take a page from the upcoming TV apps playbook and standardize some kind of "feature card". This card would include processor, ram, and GPU in a known configuration and pinout. That way you can upgrade a lot of the "guts" with a simple card swap. I don't know if I'm too fond of this idea, but it's a possibility.
None of these are bad ideas per se, but this all seems overly ambitious for Valve's first foray into the console business. If anything, what they need is focus. And to me, that focus translates into building one Steam Box console with a single configuration that will play the majority of Steam games for the next four years. Making an upgradable console will lead to a design that is clunky. If you thought the PS3 and original XBox were large, an upgradable Steam Box console would end up looking like a PC midtower. Sure, you could always upgrade your HD in the current generation of consoles, but you couldn't slip in a new graphics card or solder on a new CPU.
I think Valve should embrace these constraints and deliver what (I think) most gamers would want: the ability to play their ever-increasing Steam Catalog on their televisions with a controller that doesn't suck, in a form factor that will blend in with my entertainment unit furniture, and with a 4-5 year window where most Steam games will play.
The console is just the ante into the game, same as Xbox,PlayStation,Nintendo. Having a standard would allow hardware manufacturers as well as game devs to come into sync.
Establish a clear casual,mid level, hardcore specs every couple years and the software will be able to anticipate what it will be running on when it's released. Now GPU,CPU and SoC manufacturers will be confident that if they release hardware that conforms to each spec they certify their hardware will run at a given level. Now ARM licensees will be able to make sure the right components are integrated and they progress in the direction the consumers want/need.
Valve is more of a publisher than a hardware manufacturer anyway, they will likely be much happier just sitting back and offering OS images than make a gripe about who gets to make the physical box.
I personally would be excited about a variety of boxes. The companies that are currently on the cusp of ARM components that already have the grunt to play casual to mid level gaming and without need for a battery/display/fancy case they can do it for much cheaper. Go to your local big box store and pick up a mid level gaming system with WIFI/HTPC capabilities plus abilities to connect to a wide selection of cloud services and your good to go.
If we could get Valve to make a mechanism that would allow the resale/trading of games I honestly believe the market would soar. If there was a Valve sponsored "swap meet area" it would allow for people to become much more involved and if any money was actually made it would likely be dumped right back at the Seam Store. I guess that is a discussion for another day but ya a standard would not be a bad thing.
Hardware makers don't like sync or standards. They like platform lock in and exclusivity to motivate buyers into buying their product over a competitors, or buying both. Honestly, the steam box will end up being an x86 processor of some description with some ddr3 memory and a discrete gpu of some kind, designed to run games well at 1080p, and they will probably use some kind of boot-to-steam system (I mean steam has its own web browser and everything already!) where they replace the usual DE with just big picture Steam.
The problem with this is once users get something sold as a console, they will expect it to act like one. Yet, you still get games on steam which either don't work, or work very poorly, on ATI instead of nvidia cards, or don't like high resolutions, or are unexpectidly jerky on AMD processors for some reason.
Trying to create a "standardised PC" level, and then expecting games to run smoothly on it, seems like a dangerous game to try to play. PC users are willing to cope with having to upgrade their machine because their X is of poor quality. Console owners are absolutely not.
The only solution I can see to this, which is what I imagine valve is doing, is to exactly fix all components.
That means to have both DirectInput and XInput support.
In fact, I still think the now 'deprecated' DirectInput is far superior to XInput in almost every way (more controllers per computer, more axis, more features), except may be sales in the last few years.
So how Microsoft defines minimal specs for manufactures to follow if they want to use Windows Phone? Valve would simply provide the OS in your example right?
So I'm thinking someone starts a "PC Console Consortium" that does the following:
- Come up with a good name for the specs (similar to the old 3DO idea or the "THX" certification. It needs to have a marketable name.)
- Establish the proper bylaws and rules for the standardization process, including overall version levels, RFC-type specifications, etc.
- Come up with specs and reference designs / hardware for:
* Form factor of mother board
* Minimum number and preferred placement of ports, indicators, controls, and drive bays (if any)
* Minimum feature set (e.g. WiFi, DirectX 10, etc.)
* Standard OS image details and reference image (hopefully Linux)
* Living Room interface (Steam Big Picture mode should conform by fiat, we need those games)
* Reference controller designs and interface (should also allow use of XBox and PS3 controllers)
* etc
The way I see it, it should be possible to have the convenience of a console with the upgradability of a PC.
Lastly - and it's so important I put this separately - we need a way to take the "fiddle factor" out of PC games. Gamers shouldn't have to tweak anything when running on a spec-compliant system. They can if they want to, but it should be totally unnecessary for 95% of gamers.
To do this, I propose we standardize on some way to exactly report the system configuration. I'm thinking something like the Windows 7 scoring system. The idea is that the online stores will know ahead of time whether a game could even be played on your system. Also, when games run, they should automatically configure themselves with the optimum settings and resolution for your system (and TV or other display device).
Put simply, the "big picture vision" here is pretty simple: it's a box that looks and acts a lot like the XBox 360. The interface is just as simple. There are just as many features. The games run and play without headache. Controllers are just as nice (no more $10 "PC gamepads"). The entire experience looks like a console (no "seeing Linux or Windows boot first"). It's branded like a console. It's purchased like a console.
BUT...
It's buildable, upgradable (optionally depending on manufacturer), and "tinkerable" just like a PC. You do so at your own risk, of course, but the standard should be designed with this in mind.
EDIT:
Here's an idea that would be far in the future but would be cool. "GCPC" specs could include a new type of GPU interface. It would still be standard PCIe with power, but it would NOT include interface headers. Instead, standard video ports would be included in the motherboard standard (HDMI + Thunderbolt perhaps). If the chipset includes integrated graphics, it would use it. However, if a user plugs in one of these "headless GPUs", video signal would be directly routed to it. This would give the back of the console a cleaner, more standardized look while still allowing upgradability.
The back of the console should LOOK like the back of a console, NOT the back of a standard PC.
Another idea is to take a page from the upcoming TV apps playbook and standardize some kind of "feature card". This card would include processor, ram, and GPU in a known configuration and pinout. That way you can upgrade a lot of the "guts" with a simple card swap. I don't know if I'm too fond of this idea, but it's a possibility.