I tried Steam OS on my PC many months ago and came to this same conclusion.
Not sure how this is news when anyone could install Steam OS on a PC and test side by side on an 100% identical system and see that linux is still shit for gaming.
Games rarely work properly on Windows now a days expecting them to work on another OS is laughable.
It's news because we aren't the average consumer.
Seriously, ask your 10 year old to install Steam OS, without destroying your computer. Ask someone 30+ years old. These people can't generally do it. The Steam machines are supposed to change that, just like buying white box computers allowed for people to get introduced to computers in the 90's...
It is a highly opinionated and absolutely crappy review. While the point of it was not a mystery and I experienced horrors of steamOS firsthand, the actual testing techniques used to prove the point are ridiculous!
1) In order to test SteamOS properly they should've tested it on specs at least closer to the cheapest Steam Machine (i3-4170, 4GB DDR3-1600, GTX 750), not some random hardware pulled from the closet.
2) To be more accurate and objective they should've used RECOMMENDED settings for that spec, not some weird-ass resolution with ultra settings as the only option. This way you can actually see the real-world-every-day performance in both configurations. Ideally every game should be tested on Lowest, Medium and Highest settings, but who out of all respectable reviewers has time for this shit?
3) Not a single OpenGL-native game on the list !!!
4) Not a single decent Linux port on the list. Borderlands 2, Civilization: Beyond Earth, Alien: Isolation... anyone...?
I still agree that Linux is behind in terms of gaming, but lots of progress has been made in the past few years and for the first time in many years I'm quite optimistic.
Steam machines are overpriced, but if you look at Win10 counterparts of the same brand - they are either the same or even more expensive:
Alienware Alpha: $449 vs $499, no $25 rebate, no Payday2, no Steam Controller...
Zotac NEN is not available, but the last price check was around $899. It is $100 more expensive than their MAGNUS EN970, but has an updated Skylake CPU, Steam Controller and more bonuses which almost compensate for the price difference.
...underperforming overpriced hardware in a small package.... but hey, same audience was buying ridiculous Alienware laptops/desktops (more like lapdesks or desklamps) for "hardcore" gaming for almost a decade, so why not tiny boxes?
Give it a year or two and if SteamOS survives, we'll probably see some cheap machines for semi-comfortable casual gaming (Pentium G4400 + GT 930 for $250-300?)
You're an idiot. I start with this statement as a caustic introduction, but allow me to frame it. I am not calling you a name, but setting up a situation.
You're an idiot when it comes to computers. Anything more complicated than Facebook, and it's too much frustration for you to deal with. This is why whenever you play games you purchase a console. Plug it in, input a game, and off you go. That's largely what a console has been for the last two decades. Yes modern ones have updating, but that's why consoles are getting more ridiculous.
Here comes Valve with a Steam machine. It offers you the plug and play beauty of a console, with the library and ease of a PC. Heck, it does one better by having its own lightweight operating system, so as to provide better gaming than the bloat of Windows. You're on board with this immediately, until you see the console level price tag.
You get over the investment, and buy a Steam machine. In your experience all consoles provide a minimum level of performance, where you can buy better performance with an upgrade. The upgraded systems don't change things though, they add extra features. Your entry level choice, versus an expanded piece, both play games at your desired resolution without flaws. You therefore buy the entry level box, at $499. You expect to be able to set things as high as you can go, because that's how a console worked.
What you find is unplayable. The screens tearing, jittering, and FPS dropping to sub 30 levels make the game a slide show. You're pissed, so you contact your manufacturer. They respond to turn the graphics down, so you perceive that the Steam machine is less capable than a console. This must mean PC gaming sucks, and it's too much of an investment for you. You can't get a refund, so you ask what kind of upgrades you'll need. The local computer shop sells you a $200 GPU for $300, and you're back to playing your games at the appropriate settings.
In a year, you upgrade to the newest 4k TV, because prices have dropped. You plug the Steam machine in, and discover that at 4k your "upgraded" GPU is dying. Off to the computer shop again, where they upgrade your RAM, CPU, and GPU. You've sunk another $500 into the machine. That means this Steam machine has cost you $1300, whereas the new console costs $400. Upon seeing that, you rage quit the PC market, because it's cost you $1300 for a PC that should have cost you $900 at most.
These kinds of people are what the Steam machine is about. It's not about you or I, who can install the Steam OS now. It isn't about people who want an affordable gaming HTPC. This is about people being soured to PC gaming because Valve has screwed the pooch here. It doesn't matter if Steam OS is great in a year, if PC gaming is perceived as to much of a pain, because Valve couldn't be bothered to have standards, we're all the worse off for it.
As far as the testing system, serious? The difference is a minor increase in frequency and hyperthreading (600 MHz and 2 extra threads). The RAM was actually double that offered on Steam machines. The GPU was one generation older, one level higher, and had twice the VRAM. Beyond the test being for only one game, and the testing conditions being screwy the only thing to complain about is the author deriving generalized conclusions for the OS. I'd be inclined to be on your side, if the rather poor state of Linux gaming wasn't a given. I'd also be inclined to agree if WB games wasn't known for piss poor porting (perma recall of the latest Batman game anyone?). What has been proven is that games "with full Linux support" don't necessarily have it. That's as much of a poison as anything else Valve has injected into this experiment. It honestly seems like they're crippling this intentionally.
