Steam Machines look slick, but who's going to buy them?

Valve has officially entered the console wars. While the Washington-based juggernaut has been a major player in the industry for years, Valve’s influence was most potent on one side of the PC/console divide. All that changed with the announcement of 13 new machines for the Steam Machine lineup at CES. Manufactured and sold by high-end shops like Alienware, Digital Foundry, and Origin, the boxes themselves are sleek, powerful, and expensive. Running from $500 to over $6000, these devices are certainly impressive--but their boutique prices leave them struggling to fit into any meaningful niche.

We’re all familiar with the concept of a “game console”--a special type of computer optimized to play games. Consoles have two significant factors working in their favor. First, every console uses identical hardware, meaning developers can optimize to their hearts content, thereby smoothing over hardware-specific bugs and crashes. Second, console gamers usually get more computing power per dollar spent, since the console’s manufacturer receives bulk discounts on their hardware (and they're willing to take a loss on the hardware now so as to sell more games later). These advantages come with a with a price, though--compared to PCs, consoles have tightly controlled functionality and rely on walled-gardens to lock users into their sphere of influence. In other words, you can’t install your old copy of Baldur’s Gate on a PS4 and expect to get anywhere.

A PC, on the other hand, has a slew of potential uses, ranging from simple word processing to audio/video editing to gaming. PCs are versatile--but Steam Machines seem to trade some of that versatility for accessibility and ease-of-use. The pre-loaded SteamOS is designed for one thing--downloading and playing games--and offers very limited functionality outside this one goal for the standard gamer. Users can dig a little deeper to get to the guts of the machine’s OS and add additional programs, but doing so requires familiarity with Linux and working with a GUI like GNOME or a command line interface. And let's face it: for most of you reading this article, GUI is a typo and GNOME IS AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE THAT LIKELY SHOULDN'T BE CAPITALIZED.

Don’t get me wrong: Linux, the foundation for SteamOS, is great. It’s powerful, open-source, free, and can be incredibly rewarding to use. But working with Linux requires more technical skill than OS X or Windows, both of which are dedicated to simplifying user experiences. So, while an advanced user could transform their Steam Machine into a bastion of productivity, ordinary gamers will likely stick with the standard SteamOS and its laser-focus on gaming. For the majority of potential buyers, Steam Machines are closer kin to consoles than PCs.

What about price? Surely, if Steam Machines’ functionality is going to be limited by the user’s familiarity with Linux, they must cost less, right? Well...not exactly. If this initial run is to be any indication, Steam Machines will cost significantly more than a comparable PC tower. These are premium boxes, and the user is expected to pay a premium price. The low-end boxes are comparable with the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in terms of performance and price, but the non-standard hardware means that users won’t benefit from the strict optimization that console games usually get. The boxes on the top end of the spectrum have awesome power and elegant designs, yet they cost far more than a regular tower with similar specs.

For example, the Digital Storm-made “Bolt II” comes with a price tag of $2,600. The cost of a similar PC built from the same components ordered off Newegg? About $1,700. That’s almost a 52% markup. Lower end models aren’t so bad--the CyberPowerPC box seems to have almost no markup--but the low-end Steam Machines do little to separate themselves from the existing consoles. This leaves these new machines in a void: they offer none of the advantages of a standardized game console, yet they’re much more expensive than a regular gaming PC. One has to ask the question: Who exactly are these Steam Machines for?

Of course, companies like Origin, Alienware, and Apple do quite well offering slick devices at high prices. What makes the focus on top-end power for the Steam Machines so baffling is that it seems to stand in the way of Valve’s stated goals. Valve’s head Gabe Newell has been speaking about how critical it is for the PC gaming community to move out of its traditionally Windows-centric orbit for a while now, and Valve’s dedication to a more open gaming environment has been the tentpole supporting the Steam Machine circus. Yet the current batch of Steam Machines do little to show why users need to move away from Windows or OS X. Platitudes like “open is better” are easy to repeat, but what exactly does an open-source platform like a Steam Machine offer that Windows or OS X doesn’t? By my estimation, Valve has yet to provide a definitive answer to that question.

This isn’t to say there is no future for Valve’s foray into the living room--in a few years, the low-end Steam Machines should offer significantly more power than the aging Xbox One or PS4. On top of that, the Steam Controller is a fascinating experiment in gamepad design, and I dearly hope it’s as good as promised. But for the moment, steep prices and an emphasis on top-end power leave it unclear how a set of specialty machines are going to cause the shift in the PC-gaming paradigm that Valve is striving for.

We Recommend By ZergNet


  • death4us - January 9, 2014 3:25 a.m.

    Windows is a GUI just like GNOME not an OS and as for making things simpler then Linux GUI is a lot easier to use than Windows 8 is. One thing that everyone is right on and if these cost to much than they are a waste. But Valve looking at the current console owners and how they are willing to dish out a lot of money for underpowered consoles is probably thinking they dish out a lot of money for ones they can compete with a PC.
  • Shnubby - January 9, 2014 1:31 a.m.

  • Shigeruken - January 8, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    I think that having steam machines that aren't priced to compete with consoles defeats the point. I'm an enthusiast, so why would I spend 2k on a steam machine I could build myself for a fraction of the price and tailor to suit my needs perfectly?
  • kyle94 - January 8, 2014 8:12 p.m.

    I think in time, the Steam Machines will better find their strengths and companies will probably lower their prices. However, it'll be difficult and expensive for Valve to stay in it for the long-term in order to wait for that. I can imagine they've already sunk a lot of money into this venture, and they'll need a lot more tweaking, experimentation, and ironing out before they could effectively find a market and place itself as a cross between a normal PC and a normal console. I likely won't be buying a Steam Machine as is, but I do hope that it's eventually successful. Especially since I want Valve to be successful, and not crash and burn, taking Steam and any hopes for a Half-Life 3 down with them.
  • Subgenre - January 8, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    I'm really not sure who the Steam machine was made for. PC gamers flip the fuck out over anything that doesn't have a mouse and keyboard while console gamers are already happy with their pre-existing consoles.
  • pl4y4h - January 8, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    No one? Yea that sounds right, no one
  • GamesRadarCollanderCooper - January 8, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    dorks, dweebs, spazzes, etc
  • SnakeinmyBoot - January 8, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    Why did Valve even do that beta steam machine program? I thought they were testing to see what specs and small form factors would work best with this generation of games. They should have found those optimum specs and had a contract auction to find the top 3 companies that could make steam machines with common, optimum specs for the lowest prices. Now, we just got more of those built to order gaming PCs, except they come in small cases, with a new Linux OS that can be downloaded for free for use on another PC, and have "Steam Machine" either in their marketing or a badge on the case.
  • Shigeruken - January 8, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    It was just a publicity stunt, I think it was aimed at smaller countries like NZ which never get opportunities to enter betas like this and usually see games and hardware later at a blatantly inflated price point. Of course, the stunt fell flat when valve realized that catering to anyone outside of the US as usual would be a hassle.
  • Jackonomics2.0 - January 8, 2014 4 p.m.

    Steam machines is basically Valve telling Windows to fuck off with no gain at all except TV
  • jduanej - January 8, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    Sell barebones, with OS, and let us add our own components. Pretty sure it will thrive and develop it's niche over time...but not without a cost to Valve however. Hardware developers have to pay to join the market their first time around, everyone takes a hit until their kinks are worked out and they get that following. Microsoft is still trying to figure things out. Just my opinion is all.
  • Drekner - January 8, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    As soon as I saw the prices I was like pft lolno
  • DrJanitor - January 8, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    Bundle Half Life 3 with each unit. Steam box = hot cakes.
  • Vonter - January 8, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    What is the market for this? Even PC gamers might have it easier building their own PC and just keep updating it if necessary. But oh well at the end, games are what speaks of a system, maybe they could drop the third part of a Valve franchise to add momentum.
  • BladedFalcon - January 8, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    VERY Good question. I certainly don't think I will. I was hoping that with the steam machines, Valve would create a sensible gap between PC gaming and consoles... Guess i was hoping for too much.

Showing 1-15 of 15 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.