Consoles actually received the last Civilization.  The latest Heroes of Might and Magic was released two years ago, five years after the previous game. X3 is an indie game that can run on a PC weaker than the PS3 and 360, so what's the point in paying a lot of money on a box when you more than likely have a PC that can play that one?

I didn't exactly mean the PC receives no games, because there are a ton of games on it, but most games the PC receives now days are indie games.  There's the very rare larger budget game like Might and Magic 10, which just released last month, while just about every large budget game makes it over to consoles.  What's the point in spending a ton of money for a Steam box when a PC older than the PS3 can play just about any indie game that releases and the majority of larger budget titles that come on PC are also on consoles.

Additionally, while this is personal preference only.  I prefer retail copies of games as I feel that I actually own the game.  I don't buy Steam games until they're less than a few dollars cheap. 

If it caters to "high end pc enthusiast" then it is flawed, because no enthusiast is going to buy something they already own, or pay extra for something they can build better themselves.

Whatever Valve does will be first class and heavy, heavy competition for anyone they deserve to target. They will be the next big player in the living room - perhaps even big enough to displace MS.

X3 isn't indie. Indie assumes it's an individual working on it and it's a stupidly massive and complex game at any rate, you used to need a Telephone book sized manual to play games of old, Well. X3 essentially does. :)
Plus, it's got the backing of a Publisher.
As for the console version of Civilization, that's not even in the same league or even the same game, "Civilization Revolution" is more or less a spin off.

You're basically comparing this:


To This:


I could list a few dozen games if you really want, not all are indie, as in a lone developer.

While it's certainly possible to build a high-end PC within a case as big, or somewhat bigger than certain consoles, steambox will be most likely an off-the shelf solution for a small, powerful PC in the living room, aimed on gaming. If you haven't noticed, all current and next generation consoles try to implement more and more functions beyond their primary finction (playing games), as in web browsing, media centre functionalities. For PC based devices in the living room, like HTPC's, all these functionalities come naturally as a part of the ecosystem. PC based devices are certinly less restrictive than any console (ever) released.

Plus, there is Steam - we can argue all day long, but IMO Steam is currently the best platform for gaming. It offers an impressive library and excellent support for bacward compatibility (as in old games). And let's not forget that many older PC games will look better played on todays hardware. 

But it all depends on the Steambox implementation. If it's primary OS is Linux, and it doens't let users to change that, they have effectivly shot themselves in the foot.

So, I would say that Steambox will certainly have advanteges and disadvantages over consoles:

advantages:
- flexibility
- ecosystem (especially if windows based)
- game library and beckward compatibility
- steam sales and humble bundles :)
- if you don't like it, you can always use it as a normal PC
- doesn't restrict you on playing your games exclusively on Steambox
- when it goes out of fashion, you can always play all your games on the next Steambox (or PC)

disadvantages:
- price
- missing out on some console exclusives 

I wonder how this will work. I mean a Steambox will make the most sense if you can play all your steam games on it. This wont work if the steambox does not come with a Microsoft OS.

If it comes with some kind of Linux then 90% of the steam games out wont work with it. Does this mean steam will force developers to support Linux with their new releases otherwhise they wont be allowed to have steam "copy protection"?

If yes then will this result in Linux finally becoming a gamer friendly OS?

I am basically a little put off with the idea of high-end branded PC with limitations. It's always best to go for a custom built PC or consoles as casual/hardcore.

Gamers always keep changing the graphics settings on PC considering this or the other would be perfectly optimal for their upcoming demanding games. Consoles just save the trouble. Or in any case when needed one can opt for a gaming PC later with recommended features.

Now the OS is another entire department it needs to be capable to handle well. I don't see how Valve will be of any purpose to the gamer even as an enthusiast. For them, there's a whole lot range of PC hardware even as notebook PCs to choose from.
Bottomline: A PC is a PC, whatever tag it bears

As of now, Pros and Cons wouldn't matter. But as time progresses, Pros would fade off quickly leaving the Cons to outweigh them. To me Steambox is poised to be a dud.

Well my mistake about X3 if they're not indie.  It's on the Humble Weekly Sale right now and graphically it's poor in comparison to when it came out.  So that was an assumption. 

About indie developers though is that indie developers usually aren't Indie developers.  I've  actually never liked the term because it's rarely used properly.  Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Activision, Square Enix, and any company that works for them as first party(since they are a part of that company,) is an indie developer, as all funds come from that source.  Developers like thatgamecompany, Klei Entertainment, etc, are not actually indie, though they're given that stupid name anyways.  If you are funded in any way from any outside source, then you're no longer independent.  They should call them dependee developers. 

The price is going to be the deicing factor of it the steambox is a success or a novelty.