Steam machines... a bit odd to me. They don't really offer anything to me, as a gamer, because using my console is a chore and a half, and on top of that, having to lock myself away from the plethora of things happenin' on my PC is tough. Voice comms are hard, needless to say, and it feels like a restrictor plate was added to the Internet to keep me from enjoying the parts I love (hanging on voice comms all day, chatting it up). The general idea behind a Steam Machine is that it brings many of the great PC features to the TV, but utilizes Steam as the console's operating system instead of a normal operating system.

So far the results are - no. They are not nearly as good as throwing together a cheap system and installing Windows on it. Here is what you get in a Steam Machine:

• Gaming PC for under $500 w/ controller
• Access to many Steam games (not all, or close to it)
• Works right away with your television.

Here are the cons:

• Most games won't work with it.
• You'll need a beefy gaming PC to do the streaming section and there is an affordable streaming option instead.
• You can't get on Battle.net
• You can't get on Origin
• You can't get on Uplay, Good 'ol Games Galaxy, Greenmangaming's thing that they have, etc.
• It's linux only.
• Benchmarking has shown lower performance than similar Windows machines.
• SteamOS is free and a dual-boot option is viable on custom built systems.
• You can hook your PC into a TV via HDMI or use HDMI slings.
• There's more.

Steam Machines fill a weird not-void where people would like to take the glorious PC gaming experience to the sofa or the bed, but the harsh reality is that PC gaming's biggest strength is that you sit down on your PC and connect with others across the Internet, versus having to have an all-in-one experience affixed to a television. Of course, arguing use case isn't what I'm attempting to do, what I am attempting to do is highlight where Steam Machines are right now - they've yet to bring anything to the table to make a convincing argument for themselves.

Having been taken through the wringer across various tech publications, Steam Machines are fighting an uphill marketing battle right now, as my inbox is being slammed with advertisements for deals on Steam Machines. Alienware, the most well known producer, has a sub-$500 entry level Steam Machine, which is interesting as it's also the same price as their entry level gaming PC, which could hook into your television as well and have SteamOS installed on dual-boot, possibly the smartest and most effective way of going about the Steam experience.

Realistically, nothing new has happened after their mainstream launch so far. Opinion remains - there are those who remain in a camp that really want to see the end of the console monopoly that Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony hold and that's fine. I don't have the same feelings, as I feel that having 3 companies compete with each other is a nice enough buffer between a monopoly and functioning competition. However, Steam Machines do offer an interesting easy access point for PC gaming and an alternative to the idea that you have to have a seperate gaming PC as well to get through to PC gaming these days. For many who are laptop only, it does have an interesting allure, however, sad to say it's so far not there yet.

Perhaps, with months more of iteration and some revisions, Steam Machines will be a proper fighter in the console wars. It's not that there isn't interests in alternatives, but just a lack of reason for them. Considering a proper Windows gaming machine is the same price and will serve better, even if you have to use a keyboard and mouse to navigate to open Steam (which, with very little computer know-how, you can have auto-magically startup, not to mention many wireless keyboards include some form of mice intergration). The controllers need more iteration - reviews show that they're hard to learn and hard to use, and of course, I don't know, have a purpose to them.

The lack of Battle.net for me is the biggest killer. There is almost not a single gamer I know that doesn't utilize Battle.net to play something from Blizzard, not to mention games like League of Legends and SMITE that all collectively need a keyboard and mouse to work right. Of course, the audience is supposed to be locked into Valve for their gaming selections, but the freedom to install any game is what makes PC gaming... so great.

For now, if you're wanting to game on the TV, look at the Steam Link, it's going to be your best bet and best of all, works with any PC you already have to stream the game to your TV. Outside of that, I don't think early adoption is the smart way with Steam Machines. The second generation machines are going to learn a lot of failings from the first, and I'm sure provide a lot of interesting changes as the systems and OS keep iterating.