iBuyPower reveals first third party Steam Machine prototype

Earlier this month, Valve revealed their design for a prototype Steam Machine, running on their own SteamOS. However, that hardware device won't be released to the public; it's meant just for beta testing. Valve has already announced that a number of third party companies will be launching their own Steam Machines to the public in 2014.

This week, the first such company to confirm their efforts in making a Steam Machine revealed themselves. It's PC maker iBuyPower and, as Engadget reports, the company has now showed off images of a prototype device which looks a bit like a white PlayStation 4 console. iBuyPower said that the prototype is running an early build of SteamOS.

The company plans to build two Steam Machine models, which they claim will run all SteamOS games at 1080p at 60fps. The Verge adds that one of the models will have an unnamed multi-core AMD processor and an AMD Radeon R9 270 graphics card. It will be sold for $499 and will include one of Valve's touchpad Steam Controllers.

iBuyPower will likely reveal more information about its Steam Machine models at CES 2014 in January and Valve has already said it will be making more Steam Machine news at the big Las Vegas trade show as well.

Source: Engadget and The Verge | Image via iBuyPower

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

GTA: San Andreas coming to Windows Phone and other platforms in December

Next Story

Why wasn't a Halo game ready for the Xbox One launch?

57 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I would imagine that these boxes will be using more mainstream style rigs, as in not custom motherbards/cpu/gpu/memory configs. That's one thing people forget when looking at spec sheets for consoles, they are designed for complete balance and to get the most out of the system as packaged, generally if you built a pc using the parts from an xbox one or ps4 you would not see the same level of gaming power, simply because the hardware is more off the shelf comodity

Right. Also, because developers know what hardware they are targeting on consoles, console games can be optimized, whereas PC games have to be playable across a large spectrum of hardware. Most players won't take the time to adjust the many settings to optimize a game against their hardware, either -- or, the optimal settings might not even exist.

But this doesn't have discs that I can trade with my friends. Digital downloads and DRM is.. is.. is.. uh... UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

/s

Seriously, though, two things: the controller has always seemed weak to me (and controller is so important on console), and at $500 to play games that you can get on PC doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't know how multiplayer is to work, and whether it will mix PC and console, but FPS games are stratospherically easier on keyboard/mouse; I would never want to play a controller against someone on kb/mouse.

Maybe it's just me, but the main reason I own consoles is to play games that I can't get on PC. Almost every console I've bought has been because there's been one game that I just had to play.

well if you get a Steam Machine you wouldn't need a desktop PC. If you already have a laptop that doesn't game (or that has entry level graphics) the Steam Machine would make perfect sense.

gonchuki said,
well if you get a Steam Machine you wouldn't need a desktop PC. If you already have a laptop that doesn't game (or that has entry level graphics) the Steam Machine would make perfect sense.

Except you can build a PC in a cute cabinet for less, and run your own OS on it and still have access to Steam's crap if that is what you want.

Mobius Enigma said,

Except you can build a PC in a cute cabinet for less, and run your own OS on it and still have access to Steam's crap if that is what you want.


"cute cabinet"... what are you, a 12 year old girl? Computer cases are a matter of personal taste, otherwise we wouldn't have aberrations like some Thermaltake cases that are only missing a disco ball. Somebody has to buy them, otherwise they would have stopped making them.

The second argument is moot, it's the same old story of building yourself vs buying pre-packaged srinkled with your hate for Valve. I was just making a point that it still has a place in your home for gaming if all you have is an entry level laptop.

gonchuki said,
well if you get a Steam Machine you wouldn't need a desktop PC. If you already have a laptop that doesn't game (or that has entry level graphics) the Steam Machine would make perfect sense.

For the foreseeable future, I will need a PC -- I'm not going to buy a Steam Machine and get rid of my desktop PC.

My previous point, however, is that on XB/PS, I'm willing to put up with controllers for FPS because everyone else is using controllers. However, on Steam, I would never use a controller, if other people could use keyboard/mouse. I recall when Microsoft experimented with mixing players between PC and XB, A mediocre player on kb/mouse could destroy a top-percentile player on controller. Personally, I KNOW my performance on a game like BF4 is way better on kb/mouse.

gonchuki said,

"cute cabinet"... what are you, a 12 year old girl?

...and I get a sexist response?

Really? I just checked the calendar, it is the year 2013 here.


Mobius Enigma said,

...and I get a sexist response?

Really? I just checked the calendar, it is the year 2013 here.



that's all you can come up with? how is pointing out that you are judging something by it's looks and not function being sexist? 12 year old boy could have also worked there, it's about merely pointing the fact that even if you built a PC in an ugly cabinet it would still be more powerful. The "cute cabinet" part was a completely unnecessary remark.

What is with all the glowing parts now? As futuristic as they want to make stuff appear, I game in the dark, and I don't want glaring lights in my eyes from the consoles, controls, etc.

Leave this stuff off, I don't want lights, I want a good gaming/entertainment experience.

Spicoli said,
Were they going for "so ugly it makes you laugh" with that design? It's like taking the already pretty goofy PS4 design and making it worse.

Hi Mr. Microsoft fanboy, nice to see you here. How's that garage upgrade going? Already enough space to park your Xbone?

M_Lyons10 said,
That's kind of cool looking. Not sure how distracting that light would be long term, but a really fun design nonetheless...

I totally agree! I love the design. But could also imagine playing at night to a half lit room just from the glow alone =). You would probably get use to it though.

Now, THAT's a sexy console! small compact yet powerful. may not be the perfect thing just yet but, this is only the beginning!

Woot!

I would actually get one of those. An actual console, no BS "media nonsense" and can play any steam games at 1080p 60FPS on my big screen TV.

Umm, sorry to break it to you, but Valve is bringing media apps to Steam OS.

So that 'media nonsense' that people like to harp on, will be present.

Time to move on, anything that plays games will also support media features. Even the cherished pc gaming is not a platform totally devoted to gaming.

Yes but I guarantee you I can take the OS, strip those parts, and just play games.

When was the last time I could download MS or Sony's OS?

Nice try though.

NinjaZidane said,
I would actually get one of those. An actual console, no BS "media nonsense" and can play any steam games at 1080p 60FPS on my big screen TV.

1080p @ 60fps? Yeah right, as long as you don't mind playing with minimum details (no AA, no shadows, low res textures,...), and being able to play only Linux games (otherwise you'll need another machine to stream windows games).

and of course, you'll need to upgrade your steambox every year if you expect to play at the upcoming games that will require more powerful hardware.

as opposite to a real console which don't require an additional computer to stream game, and will run games at 60fps for years without requiring HW upgrade.

NinjaZidane said,
Yes but I guarantee you I can take the OS, strip those parts, and just play games.

When was the last time I could download MS or Sony's OS?

Nice try though.

So you want to remove all media features? Why? What does it gain you?

NinjaZidane said,
Yes but I guarantee you I can take the OS, strip those parts, and just play games.

When was the last time I could download MS or Sony's OS?

Nice try though.

Uh, that's called a computer at that point, not a console. If you're going to get it and then just **** around with the OS, you might as well just do it now with a PC. There's not any difference, except lack of that thing they call a controller.

What are you talking about?

You can uninstall all of the media apps on either console if you wish. Take the X1 for example. You can uninstall all the media apps, disable the features you don't want to use (such as Kinect, or the game dvr features). The X1 OS is surprisingly compartmentalized for that purpose. You don't need to download the OS to make adjustments to it.

The X1 and SteamOS will work very similarly. On SteamOS, you can choose to install apps or uninstall them as you wish. We don't know yet how flexible it will be in the end, but I'm sure it will allow you to do all of the basic stuff.

Now if your talking about modding the Linux OS behind SteamOS to your liking, then that's a totally different thing and is far outside of this discussion. I'm comparing SteamOS to consoles since that is basically where Valve is aiming it at. The living room.

Andre S. said,
What? The R9 270 can do 1080p60fps at high to ultra settings depending on the game. The benchmarks are there for everyone to see. http://www.anandtech.com/show/...-270-review-feat-asus-his/7

your link says the contrary on almost every page of the review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...-270-review-feat-asus-his/5

47fps in high quality mode
39fps in best quality mode

and this is an average, which means frame rate can drop much below depending on what is displayed on screen.

so saying that you will be able to play any game at 60fps at 1080p resolution is pure marketing bull****.

you can't even do that with today's games, unless you degrade the rendering quality. What do you think it will be in 2 years?

at least games consoles offer a predictable experience, gaming at 60 fps, even in 6 years from now. Of course you won't get optimal visual quality, but there is no hardware obsolescence. Games will continue to run fine without hardware upgrade. (and don't forget that at equal configuration, console games are more optimized and run better than computer games, especially in the long run)

link8506 said,

your link says the contrary on almost every page of the review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...-270-review-feat-asus-his/5

47fps in high quality mode
39fps in best quality mode

and this is an average, which means frame rate can drop much below depending on what is displayed on screen.

so saying that you will be able to play any game at 60fps at 1080p resolution is pure marketing bull****.

you can't even do that with today's games, unless you degrade the rendering quality. What do you think it will be in 2 years?

at least games consoles offer a predictable experience, gaming at 60 fps, even in 6 years from now. Of course you won't get optimal visual quality, but there is no hardware obsolescence. Games will continue to run fine without hardware upgrade. (and don't forget that at equal configuration, console games are more optimized and run better than computer games, especially in the long run)

+1

The review is also using an Intel Core i7-4960X @ 4.2GHz. The AMD CPU in this 'box' is going to drop the frame rates considerably.

Compare single core performance between these two CPUs. The i7 benchmarks around 2100, the fastest AMD CPU only hits 1700, with the average high end AMD CPU around 1500-1600. (Single core/thread performance is more important to gaming due to the way most engines rely heavily on one or two main loops.)

Even in fully using all cores, the i7 marks around 14,000, with the fastest 8 core AMD CPU topping out at 10,000.

(Unless this 'box' uses an extremely expensive AMD CPU, even a Microsoft Surface Pro 2's i5 CPU is faster.)

There is NO way this console is going to hold 1080p @60fps without shoving the quality settings down.

Also at this price point, it would be cheaper to buy or build your own PC and just hook it up to your television - and you could upgrade it as needed. There are even plenty of stylish cases in this form factor. (You also wouldn't be locked into a limited OS, and could just use Windows 8.1 and use Apps that display and work well on a television.)

link8506 said,

and of course, you'll need to upgrade your steambox every year if you expect to play at the upcoming games that will require more powerful hardware.

This myth that you have to upgrade your PC every year to play the latest games is total nonsense.

Thrackerzod said,

This myth that you have to upgrade your PC every year to play the latest games is total nonsense.

It is a myth, but it is also 'possible/easy' to upgrade components for most gamers, so they do.

link8506 said,

your link says the contrary on almost every page of the review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...-270-review-feat-asus-his/5

47fps in high quality mode
39fps in best quality mode

You picked the worst benchmark by far, where no other card, btw, did much better. Here are the full results:

Company of Heroes 2 - 56fps High Quality
Bioshock Infinite - 70fps Ultra Quality
Battlefield 3 - 80fps Ultra Quality
Crysis 3 - 70fps Medium Quality
Crysis Warhead - 80fps Gamer Quality
Rome 2 - 68fps Very High Quality
Hitman Absolution - 60fps Ultra Quality
Grid 2 - 67fps Maximum Quality

Are you still going to argue your claim of "Minimum settings"? What data do you base this on? I see most modern games running at 1080p at 60fps with little to no sacrifices in visual quality.

link8506 said,
at least games consoles offer a predictable experience, gaming at 60 fps, even in 6 years from now. Of course you won't get optimal visual quality, but there is no hardware obsolescence.
This is wildly optimistic. Many games available today on the new consoles run at 30fps by design and there's no guarantee 60fps will become standard. Even where 60fps is the target, consoles also suffer framerate issues. Battlefield 4 was already an example.

Andre S. said,
You picked the worst benchmark by far, where no other card, btw, did much better. Here are the full results:

Company of Heroes 2 - 56fps High Quality
Bioshock Infinite - 70fps Ultra Quality
Battlefield 3 - 80fps Ultra Quality
Crysis 3 - 70fps Medium Quality
Crysis Warhead - 80fps Gamer Quality
Rome 2 - 68fps Very High Quality
Hitman Absolution - 60fps Ultra Quality
Grid 2 - 67fps Maximum Quality

Are you still going to argue your claim of "Minimum settings"? What data do you base this on? I see most modern games running at 1080p at 60fps with little to no sacrifices in visual quality.

When you consider the best possible AMD CPU available is 2/3 the speed of the CPU in the review test system, do you really think the numbers you are citing will hold?

Additionally, the test was run on Windows 8.1 that can flip threads to the CPU or GPU depending on load, so if the GPU is saturated, the very fast i7 can take on GPU threads instead of waiting for the GPU.

Now add these two factors together, a CPU that would be affordable is going to around 1/2 the speed of the review test i7, and then add in that the SteamOS cannot dynamically flip GPU/CPU threads to the alternate processor as needed.

There is NO WAY you will see even close to the FPS numbers you are pulling from the review. At best, go with 2/3 the numbers you pulled, and see how close that gets you to 60fps at 1080p with no loss in image settings.

Math.

Mobius Enigma said,

When you consider the best possible AMD CPU available is 2/3 the speed of the CPU in the review test system, do you really think the numbers you are citing will hold?

Additionally, the test was run on Windows 8.1 that can flip threads to the CPU or GPU depending on load, so if the GPU is saturated, the very fast i7 can take on GPU threads instead of waiting for the GPU.

Now add these two factors together, a CPU that would be affordable is going to around 1/2 the speed of the review test i7, and then add in that the SteamOS cannot dynamically flip GPU/CPU threads to the alternate processor as needed.


Unnamed AMD CPU = probably Kaveri. Have you seen any benchmarks of Kaveri yet?
The R9 270 is already better than what the PS4 has inside, and even if the CPU wasn't Kaveri a 4-core (2 module) Richland/Piledriver at 3.2ghz is probably already better than the 8-core Jaguar inside the consoles.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the games in those benchmarks are running on a different OS with a different graphics API. There's no DirectX on Linux, so games need to be ported to OpenGL (maybe even Mantle in the future), and both Nvidia and AMD are working hard on getting their driver mess sorted out so that gaming can finally move forward on non-windows PCs.
Valve themselves already shown that their Source engine is running better on Linux than on Windows, this might be the case for other engines out there once they get properly optimized for the environment instead of doing a brute force import.

Try again with your math once you know all the details, until then all we can do is theorize about it.

gonchuki said,

You are also ignoring the fact that all the games in those benchmarks are running on a different OS with a different graphics API. There's no DirectX on Linux, so games need to be ported to OpenGL (maybe even Mantle in the future), and both Nvidia and AMD are working hard on getting their driver mess sorted out so that gaming can finally move forward on non-windows PCs.
Valve themselves already shown that their Source engine is running better on Linux than on Windows.

valve has rewritten their source engine on Linux to use the latest version of openGL, and they are comparing it to their 7years old directx9 era Windows version.

not a valid comparison considering directx11 optimized games perform better. And since XP support will disappear, most new games will use d3d11 anyway.

so don't expect games to run better on Linux. Actually, you should rather be worried that once a GPU is more than 1 year old, AMD/NVIDIA will just stop bothering to fix bugs.

Andre S. said,
You picked the worst benchmark by far, where no other card, btw, did much better. Here are the full results:

Company of Heroes 2 - 56fps High Quality
Bioshock Infinite - 70fps Ultra Quality
Battlefield 3 - 80fps Ultra Quality
Crysis 3 - 70fps Medium Quality
Crysis Warhead - 80fps Gamer Quality
Rome 2 - 68fps Very High Quality
Hitman Absolution - 60fps Ultra Quality
Grid 2 - 67fps Maximum Quality

Are you still going to argue your claim of "Minimum settings"? What data do you base this on? I see most modern games running at 1080p at 60fps with little to no sacrifices in visual quality.

interestingly, you're ignoring tests in ultra mode with all the AA settings at maximum, where the average fps is below 60fps.

and even in the number you've chosen, since they are average, this means there are moments when the frame rate can much below 60fps.

it is false to claim that this thing will let you play any game at 1080p and 60fps. You will have to reduce AA settings and avoid ultra detail settings to achieve an average 60fps (and a minimum frame rate much below that number).

you won't play next year's games at 1080p @60fps with high settings either.

and as it has been said above, these benchmarks have been made on a much more powerful CPU than the one inside that steambox. So yes, on games like crysis 3 you may have to switch to low quality to maintain 60fps.

gonchuki said,

Unnamed AMD CPU = probably Kaveri. Have you seen any benchmarks of Kaveri yet?
The R9 270 is already better than what the PS4 has inside, and even if the CPU wasn't Kaveri a 4-core (2 module) Richland/Piledriver at 3.2ghz is probably already better than the 8-core Jaguar inside the consoles.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the games in those benchmarks are running on a different OS with a different graphics API. There's no DirectX on Linux, so games need to be ported to OpenGL (maybe even Mantle in the future), and both Nvidia and AMD are working hard on getting their driver mess sorted out so that gaming can finally move forward on non-windows PCs.
Valve themselves already shown that their Source engine is running better on Linux than on Windows, this might be the case for other engines out there once they get properly optimized for the environment instead of doing a brute force import.

Try again with your math once you know all the details, until then all we can do is theorize about it.

Don't forget...

Windows can also run OpenGL just fine, and in non Valve-biased tests, faster than Linux.

As the other poster above pointed out, the Valve headlines of "Linux is faster" and "OpenGL is faster" are based on extremely flawed comparison tests of their engine.

They rewrote their engine using the latest OpenGL optimizations, and compared it to their really old DX engine, that wasn't even truly optimized for DX9, and has no DX10/11 features.

As you should know, newer video cards use a universal shader architecture with additional DMA features that are NOT USED on DX9. Even the shader is less efficient as the drivers have to emulate DX9 shaders and simulate PS and VS from the universal shader pool.

Comparing a DX11 optimized game to a nearly 10 year old DX9 engine would be disingenuous, and is just as dishonest when using OpenGL 4.x that added in DX10/11 features to a DX9 engine.

Do NOT trust Valve for benchmarking, they are out to create an illusion that supports themselves and are willing to purposely lie to the public to do it, even after being called out on it time after time after time again.

Mobius Enigma said,

When you consider the best possible AMD CPU available is 2/3 the speed of the CPU in the review test system, do you really think the numbers you are citing will hold?

Considering that at High to Ultra settings, games are almost completely GPU-bound, yes. See for instance http://www.techspot.com/review...ld-3-performance/page7.html

Additionally, the test was run on Windows 8.1 that can flip threads to the CPU or GPU depending on load, so if the GPU is saturated, the very fast i7 can take on GPU threads instead of waiting for the GPU.
What exactly are you talking about?

Mobius Enigma said,

Comparing a DX11 optimized game to a nearly 10 year old DX9 engine would be disingenuous, and is just as dishonest when using OpenGL 4.x that added in DX10/11 features to a DX9 engine.

don't you get the point I made? Do I speak Chinese? I said *all the games on that list run on DX and need a conversion to work in OpenGL*, I was specifically targetting these games that go over 60fps for which you said we had to only hope for 2/3 of that performance on an unknown AMD CPU. And again, I said it would all go well if they did a proper adaptation vs. a brute force conversion, as that's what Valve did for porting their engine.

And btw, I would also like to know about that nonsense you are talking about magically flipping threads from the GPU to the CPU, do you even have an idea what you are saying?

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that above posters think the CPU is gonna determine the...FPS?

Is Andre and a few others around Neowin's community actually developers? Can we get a forum where you have to prove you do real game or game-like development before you can post?

Anyhow, education time...

The GPU renders, the CPU processes. All games worth their salt have a Main Thread and a Render Thread at the least. If the main thread is bogged down (due to some scheduled task), the render thread will be unaffected cause...hey...it just renders what it has in its queue based on the render distance around player objects (typically).

A bogged down main thread is not going to bog down the FPS unless the game's code is dumb and they tie it to rendering.

NinjaZidane said,
Is Andre and a few others around Neowin's community actually developers? Can we get a forum where you have to prove you do real game or game-like development before you can post?

Anyhow, education time...

The GPU renders, the CPU processes. All games worth their salt have a Main Thread and a Render Thread at the least. If the main thread is bogged down (due to some scheduled task), the render thread will be unaffected cause...hey...it just renders what it has in its queue based on the render distance around player objects (typically).

A bogged down main thread is not going to bog down the FPS unless the game's code is dumb and they tie it to rendering.

I'm actually a developer, and your explanation is too simplistic. Even with a separate rendering thread, there's no point rendering a new frame if nothing has changed in the simulation; you'll end up rendering exactly the same frame and it makes no difference. Also, rendering is limited by raw CPU speed to a certain extent, especially on PC; this is the main reason that games typically don't scale very well across many number of cores, and one of the reasons developers want some API with better scalability and less overhead than DirectX (i.e. Mantle). So framerate varying with the CPU speed is not simply bad programming, it's usually more complicated than that. But when you max out a game on mid-range card like a R9 270, then you're usually running into GPU limitations way before CPU limitations. It's pretty much impossible for a developer to code for every possible combination of CPU/GPU and ensure optimal resource utilisation in all cases.

gonchuki said,

Unnamed AMD CPU = probably Kaveri. Have you seen any benchmarks of Kaveri yet?
The R9 270 is already better than what the PS4 has inside, and even if the CPU wasn't Kaveri a 4-core (2 module) Richland/Piledriver at 3.2ghz is probably already better than the 8-core Jaguar inside the consoles.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the games in those benchmarks are running on a different OS with a different graphics API. There's no DirectX on Linux, so games need to be ported to OpenGL (maybe even Mantle in the future), and both Nvidia and AMD are working hard on getting their driver mess sorted out so that gaming can finally move forward on non-windows PCs.
Valve themselves already shown that their Source engine is running better on Linux than on Windows, this might be the case for other engines out there once they get properly optimized for the environment instead of doing a brute force import.

Try again with your math once you know all the details, until then all we can do is theorize about it.

1) The 'unnamed' CPU doesn't matter, as even in Alpha testing, AMD has NOTHING that gets within 3/4 the speed of Intel processors per core. FACT.
2)I was factoring the operating systems, that is why I mentioned that Win8.1 kernel model that can dynamically schedule and virtual both CPU and GPU operations are a performance advantage and specifically something that SteamOS cannot do. (There is NO OS except Windows NT that handles GPU virtualization and scheduling in the kernel.)
3) The majority of higher complexity games often hit CPU limitations before they hit GPU limitations. However, if you are correct and it is going to be GPU limited, then Windows 8.1 that can shove DirectX calls through the i7 CPU is going to help with that.

You are right about developers compensating for a lot of hardware, and this is where some developers screw themselves as they try to take on lower level functions that they should leave to the OS.

They are too often circumventing the GPU virtualization/scheduler technologies or trying to micro-manage things that should be handed over to either DirectX or the OS, and on and on.

I can give you one engine specifically, HeroEngine that is used in SWTOR. The game/engine specifically takes on the management of GPU RAM and turns off WDM/WDDM features in Vista/7/8.

By just tricking the game/engine that it is running on XP so that it doesn't turn off the OS involvement, it can improve the speed of games/engine anywhere from 10 to 200%. Not only does this speed up the engine/game, but it also allows users to run with High settings for textures and other assets.
This is because instead of spending time loading


There are times that games/engines need to use the OS features and by micro-managing things (as they have to on Linux/FreeBSD/OSX), they undermine their game/engine's own performance on Windows and the Xbox One.

If you want to know why CoD on the Xbox One is only running at 720p, this is the reason. They are simply trying to do things that they should be just letting the OS handle for them.

In a lot of ways this reminds me of developers coming from a pure *nix background that write horrid software on Windows. Often as you go through their code, you will find tons of functions and crap that they are used to handling themselves as the Unix OSes doesn't provide the features. Yet on Windows the OS does handle these features, making their code slower and often redundant to what the OS is already handling 100 times faster.

Cool, more competition! Hope it forces Sony & MS to be competitive on digital games!

But, at 499, i'm still more impressed with what i get on my X1 feature/technology wise and will people pay 100.00 more than a ps4 for something like this?

and holy hell AMD is making a killing in this console battle

Desert Courier Chicken said,
It looks like a square looking white PS4 with a Xbox green glow. People are really creative now in days, not!

Even ugly (subjective) PS4 looks better than this...ughhhh...abomination.

LOL! Give me 720p @ 30fps cause its next gen! Oh and let me guess, no paywall!? Geez! Account suspension for swearing? No? Come on!!

Junk!

Kalint said,
LOL! Give me 720p @ 30fps cause its next gen! Oh and let me guess, no paywall!? Geez! Account suspension for swearing? No? Come on!!

Junk!

Did that make you feel better? It sure didn't make you look better.

Anyways I'm not sure what I think about steambox. If it can pull more developers to PC id be all over it.