| |||||||||||||
Valve launches SteamOSValve launches SteamOSPosted Sep 24, 2013 18:16 UTC (Tue) by Otus (guest, #67685)In reply to: Valve launches SteamOS by nye Parent article: Valve launches SteamOS
> They've already confirmed that as part of this announcement.
They confirmed the feature for SteamOS, but they've announced no products.
(Log in to post comments)
Valve launches SteamOS Posted Sep 24, 2013 21:38 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
They've also not released even a beta of the OS...so meh.
Honestly, I'm just entirely desensitized to technology announcements that don't actually involve a demo of the technology being announced.
It's hard for me to be excited by yesterday's announcement considering there's nothing tangible..not even a closed beta to sign up for or small private demo shown to tech laypress or pundits..something to show anyone outside of the Valve fenceline that this is a real thing.
I've seen so many such tech announcements over the years...not tied to any actual roll-out or teaser implementation, that never actually materialized, that I just don't have any enthusiasm left in the tank for this sort of technology-less technology announcement. Maybe its just me.
Hopefully the rest of the announcements this week will come with something tangible for someone to interact with so they can get authentically exciting by the technology and share that excitement.
-jef
Valve launches SteamOS Posted Sep 25, 2013 17:26 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
If today's (or Friday's) announcement is the SteamBox, that's when I'd expect something like "here's the hardware we guarantee" (the official SteamBox) and "here's the minimum required hardware you'll need to run it yourself" (the "random " SteamBox you build from parts). I don't think releasing the code/binary/whatever before the minimum required hardware list would be the best idea.
Valve's PR isn't…orthodox, but I would also expect to see *something* by the end of the week.
Valve launches SteamOS Posted Sep 25, 2013 17:32 UTC (Wed) by mikemol (subscriber, #83507) [Link]
I think your comment about published standards is spot-on. "Here's the minimum you'll need for this degree of functionality."
Supplemented with performance metrics (like the "Windows Experience" metric set in Vista and up) and feature presence tests, and you can automate compatibility by encouraging developers to put performance and feature requirements in package manifests. You might even go so far as to warn the user if they want to run a game for which their system is on the edge of supported specs.
It would help with things like "why is this game so sloow?" "You see that yellow marker next to the title? That means your system isn't fast enough to run that game at the visuals preferences you set in your global settings. Don't ignore that yellow marker."
|
|||||||||||||