Do you have a link describing this tier system?

In a PVP multiplayer game - will you only be paired with other people who are using a controller?  Of the same tier?

They have only briefly hinted at it as the whole thing is still in beta.

They have said though that there will be multiple tiers of Steam box made by Valve and then several others made by other manufacturers at various power levels. Every box will be "ranked" and those ranks, or tiers, will determine 1. if you can run a game on Steam, 2. how well it will run and 3. what sort of graphics you can expect to have at what resolution.

As the boxes are designed to be set top boxes that connect to living room TV's via HDMI, I would imagine they are shooting for 720p60 and 1080p60 performance levels.

My guess is matchmaking will occur using Steam's normal routes... The steam boxes will be generating unique signatures to Steam, so perhaps they will corral all the steam box people into their own lobbies? I have no idea as everything is still in beta and Valve has only released barebones hints and faqs so far.

Steam box info form Valve is very barebones.

It's a linux-based OS, so theoretically you should be able to crack it open and get under the hood to set up whatever other systems you want on it.  But since it isn't in the wild yet, it's impossible to say for sure.

I built a system 2 weeks ago for someone ended up right over 490.00 that could play any game out right now on ultra. Also I just bought a 24 inch top of the line gaming monitor for 120.00 for myself 4 weeks ago at Newegg.com





I could probably dig the links up for both if you are interested but price goes up when you wait due to sales expiring.



edit: also im not familiar with the overclocking process and im not interested due to the strain it can put on parts but I have seen recommended part kits for high 300.00's that promise when over clocked that you will be able to play any game out at the moment on ultra settings.





 

And remember that you don't need to play all your games on ultra to get a good experience.  If we are talking on par with console gfx, it's generally going to be medium to high with 2xAA or thereabouts.

Still, I wouldn't buy a $400 gaming PC, no way, no how.  If I'm going to go through the hassle of building one, I'm going to make sure it's a good one.

Trolololololol

Takeing things a bit serious eh? This is why they flock to you its like tossing blood in the water.

I take my free time very seriously yes, as I don't get a lot of it. And when I'm not having fun I stop doing what I'm doing and go do something else.

Just because some kids or assholes need to antagonize others to get their jollies doesn't mean other people brought it on themselves or somehow invited it. Hell, I didn't even use a headset playing Xbox... it's still in its original bag in a box somewhere.

I would say the same thing about the ridiculous blanket statement in your post.   I have spent 20 years using PC's and I have had major problems with every single one of them (hard drive failures, windows constantly crashing, etc).   I have never had a major problem with my macs.   I would pay extra for that alone.   For my job I also occasionally have to process hundreds of thousands of photos and endless hours of video.   My company tried to do that on PC's and had constant problems.  You know what the company told them that provides and services their PC's?  They told them to buy a mac for that.

Plus, all of our macs run windows programs just fine in Parallels.   I can export my documents from Pages as word documents and open them up and edit them.    

I prefer playing Counter Strike on a PC and that is about it.  It runs fine on my mac but will close unexpectedly unless I have the settings on low.  

If I had to do my daily work on a PC I would go, as you so eloquently put it....  Insane.

ETA:  For the record, I don't really care what anybody else uses.  If PC's work of you great... I agree that PC's are infinitely better for gaming.    However, saying people are dumb for using macs because they are expensive is just an obtuse and prosaic way to argue a point.   Use whatever you want to use and stop caring so much about which one is better.

STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!

Even on arfcom (especially on arfcom?) people get super defensive whenever you have an opinion not in lockstep with theirs.  I joke about being the "PC master race" but in the end everyone should just get what they want.  Amazing idea.

The point I was trying to get across is that a PC and a Mac have the exact same parts in them, the only difference being the shell they're in and their Operating System. Of course the Mac is dramatically more expensive then any PC and normally 1000.00 dollars or more expensive then a self built PC. In general if you have the know how to put together a PC you are saavy enough with software as well to keep Windows from crashing, EVER. Once you do that as I mentioned in my post then you get a new perspective on Macs.



FYI hard drive issues aren't a Mac vs PC thing they both use standard hard drives most of the time made by the same exact company.





 

Saying that people are stupid because they spend money on macs is a ridiculous statement not matter what point you were trying to make.   I don't have know how to build my mac or be "savvy" enough to work with the software.   Macs have always worked infinitely better for me over PC's, and it isn't even close.   The fact that they use the same parts is moot to me because PC's and Mac's haven't performed similarly for me at all.   Problems using PC's, both hardware and software, have been too numerous to count.   Using a PC for every day stuff after Windows Me was released gives me the shivers.   That crap turned a nice dell laptop into a brick for me.  Then there are all the parts I have had to replace on the PC's I've had after that.   Hard drives going bad, power supplies quitting, numerous disc read errors....etc.  I've never had anything remotely close to that on my mac.  

My perspective on macs is just fine... They make my job much easier.  If your main use for a computer is gaming I would definitely say to build/buy a PC.   With my personal experience, however,  I really would never recommend them for anything else.  

If PC's are your thing though, I definitely don't think you are dumb because I don't care what you use.    However, I just find it silly to call people stupid for choosing to use a product that has been incredibly better for whatever situation they find themselves in.

I'll bet you $100 you can't build an equivalent PC machine for 1000 less than a PC.*

*Using standard retail pricing for standard home use type laptops or desktops.

My macs are tax write offs anyway....  

Gaming, and overall computer use, is far too subjective to say unequivocally that one is better than the other for someone other than themselves.

It would be great if you can get your hands of the stuff and do some experimenting to find what works best for you.

Wait, what?

ETA:  Ah, I think you must have meant equivalent for 1k less than a mac

I wouldn't take that bet.  In my (limited) research I'd say it's rarely more than $500 more.  Usually more along the order of a few C notes.  Of course, it partially depends on the model you are talking about.

Actually, that makes me curious.  Imma go check on this.

I love mac laptops, and I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could ever find one on sale when my current one shits the bed.  I always seem to have the worst luck where my stuff breaks and the macs are not on sale at the time.

ETA2:  Holy shit, it's nearly impossible to even tell what's roughly equivalent on Apple's site.  I think the iMacs would be the closest desktop equivalent, but they don't have an option with a real desktop graphics card - just the neutered laptop "M" versions.  What resolution is the screen?  I know they use IPS, but is it 1080, or 720?  No way they are running 1440 with the GPU options listed.  They don't even tell you what model number of processor they are using.  

Still, from a quick glance it seems unlikely that it would be 1k less.  Several (many?) hundred for sure, but not 1k.

Yeah, I don't see them on sale very often either.  When I bought my macbook not too long ago the only thing that was discounted was an old version that had the regular HD's in them.   The new Macbooks all have SSD's.   I just looked and the old ones are still available... Must not be discounted enough.  

Since I got curious and wanted to see what the numbers actually were, here's an example.

OK, so I started with this iMac here, in it's base version (no upgrades):  Linky.  It's the cheapest one on the list that has a real (well, sorta) graphics card.  The 750M is a laptop card about on par with a desktop 640, or maybe a smidge better.  Since they don't give me the speed it's running at it's hard to tell for sure.

Here's what I came up with on pcpartpicker.   Unfortunately, it's difficult to tell for sure if this is 100% similar, because I couldn't for the life of me find a complete, detailed specs list that talks about things like number of USB ports, exact model of CPU, what the optical drive does, etc.  Still I think I got pretty close.  The only real big difference is that with the PC you will have a separate box + monitor.

With Windows and all relevant peripherals (and shipping), I came up with $715 for the PC build, vs $1500 for the iMac.  So you would save just under $800 by going with a BYO PC vs a mac.  I actually could pretty easily push it over 1k savings if I started to add in some of the additional options they list - they want an extra $200 () for 8 more gigs of RAM.

PC part picker list

So in the end, yeah, it's actually possible to get to the 1k savings number with PC vs mac, and probably more the higher up the list of pricey Macs you go.  However, it's still ultimately up to what works for each individual user the best.  Macs have some pretty big upsides for a lot of people that make them worth the extra scratch, and that's fine by me.

ETA:  Also, this has now somehow devolved from a PC vs console debate to a PC vs Mac debate.  

I'm going to be picky and say comparing an iMac to a traditional parts built machine is not an equivalent comparison. In truth the iMac should be compared to another "all in one" machine from dell or whoever makes something with the same type of form factor.  It's really more laptop than desktop.

I believe the iMacs have a retina display, but would have to look it up to be sure.  

Couldn't get your link to work.  I am on my PC so that could be why ( ).  Does $715 include a monitor with similar specs?  Just curious.  

And, you are right.. I shouldn't have said anything. I just think it is small-minded to call people stupid for using macs because they are expensive.   We tried PC's.. They just didn't get job the done efficiently.  Our macs have probably paid for themselves in man hours saved.  

But anyway... Like I said earlier...  consoles and PC's can both be fun.. GET BOTH!

Yeah, the problem is that you can't custom build an all-in-one system, so there is no 1-to-1 comparison option in existance.  I just got as close as I could specs-wise, since that is all the better I can do.  A laptop would be a closer comparison, but you can't custom build a laptop either, so the comparison is still null.


Is a 22" iMac really any more "portable" than a separate monitor and small form factor case?  I'm genuinely curious.  Practically speaking, I don't see a scenario where you are gonna be taking either one on the road; that's what a laptop is for.  And if you do need to take it with you, it seems to be about the same amount of hassle, except for an extra cable or two to hook up.

22" 1080p monitor, keyboard/mouse, and maybe speakers (I actually don't remember if I added those, lol).  Since apple doesn't deign to give me the monitor specs (resolution, backlight, ms lag time, etc.), I can't say for sure how close it is.  Same resolution is about as good as I could do.

I don't know much about the monitor either.  I do prefer watching movies and the look of games on my iMac monitor over my BenQ however.   There is nothing wrong the BenQ, i like it, but the colors look a little flat in comparison.  Well, to me at least.

I think they use an IPS screen.  But most of the IPS screens available separately these days are 1440p, and I know that the 750M can't drive that resolution.  So I think it's probably a 1080p version.

The graphics card in my iMac is a AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2048 MB.  Not sure if that makes a difference or not.   This iMac is a couple years old now though.

That is sorta my point.  The best one can do for the traditional parts built comparison to an Apple computer is to compare it against either the Mac Mini (for which there is nowhere near $1000 of wiggle room) or the Mac Pro.  Which is a workstation class desktop with Xeon processors and dual CAD graphics cards.

Perhaps someone could find $1000 in the Mac Pro...  but I still doubt it.


Also - as a former Corporate IT guy, I would have killed for a similar (but less expensive) all in one type PC.  I can't explain how dumbified users get when hooking up computers.  Saying "put this on your desk and plug the keyboard, mouse, and power cords in" would have been heaven.  Not the same animal we're discussing, I know.  I just can't describe how some folks brains seem to shut down when they are presented with two boxes instead of one.  It's amazing.

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

The 21.5" iMac is 1920x1080

The 27" iMac is 2560x1440


The GT750M card is the same card used in the 15" MBP with retina display which is 2880x1800

Good frame rates on a 1440p monitor require very, very high end cards.  We are talking GTX780 level cards.  Especially if you want to take advantage of the 120hz refresh rates on a lot of the new ones out there.

Hey, a specs sheet!  

Well, kinda.  But at least we have the resolution, if nothing else.

Sorry, I should have specified "can't drive that resolution for gaming."  The 750M is a card that will be running way sub-30fps for gaming on anything higher than 1080p.  All it is is a normal desktop GT750 card, which is solidly middlish end already and won't do well over 1080, hobbled for lower power consumption and a smaller form factor for laptops, etc.  For normal computer type tasks I'm assuming it would work fine, since the vast majority of your requirements are going to the CPU and not GPU in non-gaming scenarios.

That is interesting... I have the 27" iMac, and I haven't noticed anything unusual while watching movies or videos.   I haven't played any games on this iMac other than CS, but I am sure that is probably all it can handle.   CS runs a lot better than it did at first.  If I have the settings at medium or below it works great.

With movies and videos, the GPU isn't doing much work compared with the rendering and computing requirements of gaming.

I'm sure games will "run" on high resolution screens with a 750M.  But you won't have a good experience - you'll either be turning the specs waaaaay down like you do on your mac (consider that CS is hardly a heavy hitter graphics wise already, so the fact that you have to turn the settings of even a game like that down to medium is telling), or dealing with ass-level framerates.  And even with the resolution turned down, you won't be likely (I don't have first-hand experience, so I want to be cautious in saying that for sure) to be hitting great framerates anyway.  You'd have to run Fraps or whatever the mac equivalent is to be sure, but I doubt that you are hitting 60fps in CS, even with the settings turned down.  

Half Life 2 or similarly old games probably will allow you to have both high settings and good frames, but Skyrim?  Yeah, no.  And forget twitchy shooters like counterstrike at high settings.  As you said, it might run on lowered settings, but it won't run great maxed out.  Certainly not to the 60fps level that you need for those sorts of games.

Just as a disclaimer, I haven't tried this stuff in the real world, so I'm not speaking from a wealth of experience with macs and GPUs and games.  But just by looking at benchmarks it becomes clear that it isn't capable of putting out enough power for good frame rates at good resolutions for games.  If a PC can't make it happen, neither can a mac.  Of all the GPUs the Imacs use, only the 780M starts to get to level of what would probably be an acceptable gaming experience for most newer games at high resolutions + high fps.  But even then it's now pushing 1440 and the mobile card is not going to give you as good of performance as the ungimped desktop model.

Though again, I don't know of too many (any?) people who buy a mac *for* gaming.  Macs aren't really designed for it; they excel in other areas.  So to complain that they suck at gaming really wouldn't be fair, since it's not part of the design parameters.

ETA:  IIRC you recently bought a normal desktop 750 for your counterstrike PC.  That's going to give you better performance than the mobile 750M version.

Yeah, I had an old PC that I upgraded with the GPU and RAM you recommended.  Thanks for that again, by the way.  It is the GTX 750 ti.   That is what I will be using for CS once I get the mouse and keyboard set up.    My mac will run CS on high, but it crashes too much.   Once I turned down the settings it runs ok.  

It is sort of weird though..  I have watched several pro CS players stream their games and almost all of them have all of the settings on low.  I don't know why that is...  Are they just trying to max out FPS or something? I haven't thought to ask while I am watching.  

For example Hiko who is a really good pro CS player puts his monitor on a lower resolution so it looks stretched out a bit and then all game settings are on low.  He gets really high FPS so I just assumed that was probably why.  I don't think it is because they are streaming either because I have seen frame rates in the 300-400 range on that little counter in the bottom of the screen.  I'm sure they could raise the settings a little and still be ok.  Of course, I don't really have a clue about that kind of stuff.

Low settings = higher FPS.  Less clutter too - haze, grass, shadows, etc are all lessened or removed, so there isn't as much stuff distracting your vision.  Some of the higher end guys might be running 240hz monitors, though I don't know if they even make monitors that have a higher refresh rate than that.  So people with 300+ FPS are probably not getting any real-world benefit on screen.

Personally, I like my games to look pretty, so I try to set my settings as high as possible while still getting 50-60fps, which is acceptably smooth for most of the games I play.

The cs pro's must hav some janky systems then i have everything maxed and i never dip below 285 fps on GO

It's not just them... I have yet to see any settings above a medium for anybody that I have watched.   The streamers on twitch who play CS regularly do it as well.

The best games are on PC and have the greatest graphics and mods, updates etc.  This platform also allows you to do many other things like internet, house hold budgets, writing stuff etc.  Consoles are just for games and are limited to the parts that come with them.

They play on the lowest settings for the least amount of input lag.  I have a 780ti and I play cs on all low.