Steam box failed because there are plenty of PCs available already

***more powerful than the next-gen consoles as well.***

Tell us more Futureman.

@Christopher

A next Gen console isn't going to have a $300 CPU (which the Ryzen 7 2800x currently is), when consoles sell for $500 or less. Hence more powerful than the next-gen consoles. Realistically expect a custom 6-Core or 8-Core Ryzen 2400g equivalent.

The next-gen consoles aren't going to have 32GB or 64GB of RAM. That's $200 - $400 in RAM when consoles sell for $500 or less. Hence more powerful than the next-gen consoles. Realistically expect 16GB of RAM, and at best 8GB DDR4 + 16GB GDDR6 which would be illogical for the motherboard, consume too much space, and again cost too much.

The next-gen consoles are highly unlikely to have SSDs for storage, because once again it cost too much and people are maxing out their 1TB HDD already. A 1TB is over $100, when consoles sell for $500 or less. Hence more powerful than the next-gen consoles. Realistically a 2TB SSHD is a more affordable, and higher storage option.

Last by not least the GPU. This is the only component that could reach parity depending entirely on when the console launches 2020 / 2021. For gaming the GPU is the most important component so it makes sense most of the budget would go here. The issue is the next-gen consoles only have up to 50% of their overall cost dedicated to the GPU portion and that's a HUGE stretch, so that's comparing a $250 MAX 2020 / 2021 GPU to a current 2018 / 2019 $500 GPU at minimum.... So AMD needs to produce a mid-range card for $300 or less, that's on par with their current RX Vega 64. Which is possible going to 7nm. And then after going into a console it will be underclocked from it's normal clock speeds. So yes a $300 next-gen console could potentially rival Vega 64 / GTX 1080 / and maybe even RTX 2070. It's not matching a 2080 / 1080 Ti / 2080 Ti. Hence more powerful than a next-gen console.

You don't need to know the future, you simply need to use common sense and have an understanding of computer technology.

So...it's a branded PC? If it doesn't include Windows, then what's the point as it'll severely limit the games available on it. If it includes windows, then why is it being called a console?

Game developers don't need these fancy computers to develop games, and aren't going to pay a premium for something that looks fancy. I know some that use Alienware computers, but they usually are upgraded to their own specifications, and a DELL, ACER, Lenovo, or HP is just as proficient as far as I'm concerned, not to mention cheaper. No major development house needs premium priced PC's, and the average indie or hobbyist developer isn't going to gain any advantage with this. For the most part, game devs aren't using bleeding edge technology in their studios. maybe the graphics cards, and the graphics artists or animators may have special set ups, but the average engineer doesn't need that much power....although its nice to have in the companies that afford to blow money on things. Like Epic seems to get new bleeding edge computers every year. But they're creating engines, and have to be at the forefront of technology and create tools that will be used years from now.

I have no problem with them entering the PC market. But that doesn't make it anymore special than an Alienware(or similar paradigm) created computer. If it wants to be a closed system like the Steam Box, then it's going to be dead in the water, and this studio has nowhere near the clout, marketing muscle, or resources that Valve had behind Steam Box. Even NVidia struggles to make a name for itself in the portable market, so how is a game developer with limited success going to compete in this day and age, and what investors are going to give them the billion or so dollars on such a risky venture, when they have no track record for this kind of thing.

If this is a closed system box, like the Steam box, then it renders its game dev potential moot, as visual studio is ubiquitous in game development, and DX is still pretty much required to be available on the system. If they aren't using Windows, MS is less likely to provide them with significant support for DX.

For the gaming consumer, I fail to see why they can make significant gains by having so much power. Usually game development is several years behind the curve of the power that's available. About the best one can hope for is there will be some support for a GPU that is less than a year old. I know some people really strive to have a really powerful PC, but they often make their own, and unless they're taking the Alienware approach, it's not going to get them very far. Even Alienware had to start making a wider range of PC's to stay afloat, because there wasn't enough of a market for the most powerful PC's to sustain them.

This seems like the wet dream idea of a PC master race elitist, and not the sound business paradigm of a reasonably laid out product plan. I can dream about a PC I might want to build on parts builder, and make it the most powerful system there is. but I don't think many people would want to buy all those parts if I put it together in a fancy case, and slapped a fancy name on it...even if I had a marginally successful game on my companies portfolio.

ABizzel, the thing is, neither will any successful console in the next three years. If they make that, it would be more expensive than a pre-built PC with the same specs.

Yet you're here acting as if that is what we will get. We won't. It will either be toned down more in line with Xbox Two/PS5 or won't make it at all.