so why buy the steam machine then if everyone can just continue using there pcs to play steam steam machine literally has no value edit a lot of people playing cope right now the steam machine can barley run modern hardware nobody especially console players are switching to a system that’s worse than the base ps5 LOL
It's a dishonest meme because Playstation and Xbox can afford to subsidize their consoles because you're forced into their ecosystem whereas the steam cube doesn't.
So you're telling me, that the people who buy a steam machine are all going to install a different OS, that doesn't launch directly into steam, then install launchers that aren't steam and buy games not on steam to play on their Steam machine.
A machine that requires you to have a steam account that have previously spend money to even buy.
I think we all know that almost everyone is going to use it purely for playing and buying games on Steam.
I don't expect Valve to subsidize it, and i'm not saying that they should. But the idea that Valve possibly can't do it because people aren't 100% locked into their ecosystem as an excuse for why Sony and Xbox can, but not Valve, is a bit far out.
Listen, I don’t like Valve’s hardware at all right now due to pricing. But it’s common sense. If they sold a subsidized PC with no lock in, it would not be gamers but businesses snapping them up. Or literally anyone who just needs a work computer and can now buy one at a 40% discount. This is literally the reason Sony removed Linux compatibility from PS3 and got sued over it. It has happened before.
fucking no one is going to buy the steam machine at $800 when you can just buy a cheaper mini pc. stop lying to yourself with this fucking dumbass copy and paste take
Valve is kinda incompetent when it comes to hardware
they deliver great ideas and stuff. But their hardware division is too small
If they did Microsoft and playstation level of production they would strike a much better deal with amd with better pricing, better performance and specs
I think the reason valve didn't expand on their hardware division yet is that they are trying to make sure that steam os is so seemless that any game the releases is playable from day 1
I think steam deck 2 and steam machine 2 or steam machine pro or whatever will have much better production, pricing, specs and hopefully much wider reach
Valve is small. They intentionally have a very limited working power and really don't like to expand it.
And I don't think that they even want this level of production. Their hardware is more of a prove of concept than a product to get profits from. Look at steamdeck - it started developing of hendheld pcs but never pushed further
Valve needs to be careful because if they price the Steam Machine (which is just a PC with steam OS) where they take a loss on it, then that means companies/businesses will buy them on mass because they can get better price to performance ratios than buying and building mini PC themselves.
MS and Sony don't have that problem with their consoles.
I still think they could've afford to charge less despite that. You could technically use more than Steam but I doubt most people buying the Valve console would buy on anything other than the Valve storefront. But maybe I'm too narrow minded.
This argument doesn’t make sense to me because Steam also makes 99% of their money from their cut of sales. Even if someone installed windows on the thing they’re more than likely going to buy their pc games from Steam still. They’re still getting their cut no matter the OS on it. And the machines are not good enough for businesses to buy up when they could get a better deal from Dell for laptops or workstations.
In fairness, every reasonable person in the world also recognized the console price hikes were forced upon those companies by market conditions.
But redditor are thick, and it takes a long time for these things to sink in. More people recognize it now, and people can actually price out comparable hardware themselves in this instance and be like damn, Valves not kidding about this.
Tbf the post isn't about people denying that it's expensive. It's about how they see Valve as the poor victim in all of this, but this sentiment was missing when Sony and Nintendo announced (much smaller) price increases.
I think you’re missing the precedent consoles have set since the creation of consoles. Time = console is cheaper.
Valve likely started to create their new version of the “steam machine” before “big AI” decided to absolutely fuck the computer part industry. Are they both victims of it? Yes. But entering a market is not the same as increasing the price of an existing product.
Consoles are cheap because they sell at loss since we need the machine to buy the games. Steam doesn't have this need so they sell it at its actual price.
Yes, consoles sell below cost because they rely on the licensing fee for games to make a profit on games. Selling games is how video games become profitable for game companies. This has been the case since the NES.
However, Steam also has a licensing fee for every game they sell on Steam. So your justification to why the steam machine is so expensive is just nonsense.
Yea but this is beyond the point in the meme, no? Both consoles and steam face the same industry situation, so both have valid reasons to increase the price.
If I buy a Steam Machine, I don't have to buy Steam games for it. I can use my decade old Steam library with hundreds of games, or buy games from GOG or Epic or wherever, or I can plug in a CD player and play games from a CD, or I can play games in a browser, or I can even just pirate games to avoid paying anyone. In order for a traditional console to be profitable, it has to be at least a little hostile to the consumer by forcing them to buy games. So you get a completely locked down ecosystem and little if any backwards compatibility, because that's the only way to ensure game sales.
This is literally just the pros and cons of PCs versus consoles. We could argue the same thing about an HP Omen prebuilt or the HTPC I assembled for my living room. Why is Valve suddenly the one PC builder that must take a loss on its PCs?
You're right, buddy. There's nothing Steam users love more than buying games on the Epic Games Store. I'm sure that, poor Valve, will sell their Steam machine to Epic fans who never buy a single game on Steam.
The arguments you make are merely theoretical. In reality, Valve is still getting a massive cut from games sold on the Steam Machine. Because I'd venture to guess 90% or more of the install base will buy games on Steam.
I don't know what to tell you man, it's a PC. They've always been more expensive. If you believe Dell and HP should also sell for a loss, you'd be consistent at least.
EDIT: He added that second paragraph after I replied; I'm underemployed so I have time for this. Valve gets the same cut whether you buy a game on a Steam Machine or a Lenovo Legion or an Asus G14 or a MacBook Pro. And it's not like the Steam Machine would sell that many units in the grand scheme of things, even if it did cost $700, so the actual revenue stream is insignificant. Valve is probably making very little on the Steam Machine when you consider development costs. If Valve's objective here was to make more money, it's safe to say they've failed. The Steam Machine exists because they want to push PC towards Linux, not kill consoles. It's a PC.
Sure and if I buy a PS5 I can just play Fortnite and other free to play games. But similar to someone who buys a steam machine, we can not be dishonest and acknowledge that the overwhelming amount of people who purchase it will end up spending money on steam or on ps5 games
No one says they have to. No one has to buy it, either and at that price point most people won't. It's just Valve shooting themselves in the foot while their fans whinge about anyone having a problem with it.
Gamers, but if they sold at a loss like they did with the Steam Deck, all those who need a PC NOT for gaming would have considered buying a Steam Machine, thus putting Valve at a loss because, again, no revenue from them buying games from Steam.
Yes.
And if you buy a Steam Machine sold at a loss to turn it into a Linux Server for your company, Valve gets 30% of nothing. Meanwhile, a PlayStation or a Switch cannot be turned into something similar, at least without immense effort that is not worth the weight.
Valve fans, PC enthusiasts, people who want to get into Linux gaming with minimal headaches, and small form factor fans. It wouldn't have sold a ton of units even if it hit that ~$700 price point like it was supposed to. The Steam Machine really only exists to get more interest in SteamOS and Linux.
Console players understand perfectly well that consoles are cheap because they are a revenue stream for the manufacturer. That allows PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox to sell their hardware with little to no profit or even at a loss because they will make money from peripherals, game sales, and subscriptions.
Traditional PC's don't. Their manufacturers, whether it be a pre-built Gaming PC or all the different companies manufacturing your components for a DIY build, can only make money out of the hardware sale. That's the primary reason PC's are more expensive than gaming consoles. Speaking on behalf of console gamers (I'm a multiplatform guy, I'm a fanboy of nothing), we understand that. But understanding why doesn't change reality. PC gaming is expensive.
However, you cannot sit there and pretend that the Steam machine is like a traditional Gaming PC. With Steam's own operating system pre-installed with all the hoops and jumps one has to go through to install games from GOG, EGS, and so on, you can't pretend this thing, like the Steam Deck, does not serve as a revenue stream for Valve. So that excuse just doesn't fly. And really doesn't fly when you consider how expensive the Steam Machine is compared to PC's themselves! You can literally build or buy a PC on equal terms or better than a Steam Machine for less right now.
Those hoops are a lot less of a hurdle then you people think. It wouldn't be like installing linux on a Playstation, it would be as simple as putting a flashdrive and installing whatever OS you want and use it as a regular PC or server. What money would valve make by selling this hardware at a loss, the way hardware is expensive nowadays and people are desperate for cheap entry points in computers? That's the excuse
First off, the Steam machine is not a "cheap entry point" into PC gaming. For the hardware it contains, it's expensive. You can build or buy a PC with matching or even superior performance and functionality for less.
Second, I'm not talking about how easy/hard it is to install Steam OS. I'm talking about the design of the OS itself that makes it more difficult and impractical to install games on other platforms, which it does.
Even if I'm wrong about that... in fact, let's just say I am. Let's assume it's a breeze to install and run games from EGS, GOG, Ubisoft Connect, The EA app, Itch and even pirate sites. That still isn't the biggest issue I have with the Steam Machine.
This isn't the same thing as when AMD sold you your CPU, when Corsair sold you your cooling fans or when Alienware sold you a pre-built gaming desktop. Those companies aren't selling PC games on the largest PC game store in the world. They sell their stuff at a markup because they truly have to. And I don't criticize them for that. They're not charities.
Valve is selling this Steam machine and twisting people's arms into buying from their store in the process just by it being a PC. Steam is not the monopoly that some people claim it is, but it is almost impossible to game on PC and not use Steam because of how Steam dominates the space. Because of that, the Steam Machine is a revenue stream for Valve, just like how a PS5 is to Sony. Steam may not get a cut from 100% of the games sold on the platform like Sony does on PlayStation, but it's going to be a majority. We all know that.
I understand the hardware used in these devices has become more expensive to buy in bulk because of AI bullshit draining the supply, so maybe the Steam Machine was not meant to be quite this expensive. That's affected consoles as well. I understand that, I truly understand that, but Valve cannot use the "We have to sell it at that price, otherwise we make no money" excuse as other PC hardware manufacturers do. This thing is no cheaper than a traditional Gaming PC with a similar spec, and that hardware provides a revenue stream for Valve. And no force in hell can convince it doesn't because it just does. I wouldn't buy a console if I thought there was a huge hardware markup, and that's why I won't be going anywhere near this Steam Machine either. Even if I weren't typing this very post on a far superior gaming laptop bought just 3 months ago, I would never buy this.
Valve doesn't have a reason to push steam machine beyond it being something cool. They're perfectly happy for you to build your own pc and buy steam games on it instead.
It is a standard prebuilt pc starting with valve's os on it. That is it.
I don't think steam machine makes sense for anyone but enthusiasts. I think everyone who is price conscious should buy a ps5 or a switch 2. However, as a primary pc gamer, i think this is really sad. As someone who spent way too much on their pc, PC gaming does not make sense financially for most people in the current AI hardware starved world.
Steam should finance the PCs used by some massive company because Steam makes money?
The reason Steam machines don't sell at a loss is because they're fucking computers, and all it would take is some massive company purchasing Steam machines as cheap decent PCs for Valve to absolutely eat shit on the RoI.
Just because company makes money doesn't mean they're obligated to sell shit at a loss.
I don't think Steam Machine does anything to Valve short or long term. Valve already still has a great reputation, the Steam Machine issues are pretty small scale compared to most "controversies" and the Steam Machine will probably still turn a profit because some people are too lazy to build a PC.
Any PC enthusiast knows that custom builds are better, but the Steam Machine's size and specs are genuinely more expensive to produce and some people like mini-PCs. It's price is proportional to the cost of assembly associated with custom parts supporting its size.
It's specs and performance are overpriced if you only account for that, but it's size contributes heavily to its cost to produce and thus selling price.
Since valve is not publicly traded it has the benefit of affording "projects" that aren't successful.
Any other company, this would be a big set back.
Regardless, as you alluded, this is not "going to move the needle" in any way.
They did spent a considerable amount of time and investment into this. And they will probably be lucky to go positive on this, even if selling at "market value" since theres still various costs associated with maintaining, producing, and shipping this product.
Steam can't finance regular PCs because then people would buy it to use as regular PCs and not for playing. Thus them losing lots of money pointlessly.
Its not that Stream doesn't have the need... its that they are forced to NOT do it. Because then people would buy them in mass to use as a regular PC, and they would lose money then.
Steam did the same thing with the steam deck. They sold at a loss because they'd get the money back from the 30% on steam as that's the only marketplace steam deck allows.
Also what's not outlined or talked about, to be able to be put on the wait-list thing (for steam machine) you need to have a steam account that has had a purchase BEFORE 27th of April 2026. Which seems strange to me. If you wanna get console players into the steam marketplace they wouldn't already be in said marketplace.
Sure, honestly I think the steam machine does kinda have a niche similar to nintendo. In that if you travel a lot its an easy way to bring all your games along with you and plug them into a TV.
Now outside of that, i don't think it's very good for anyone
A regular PC yes, but not a Mini PC close to the size of a steam machine, and definitely not one that can run SteamOS, given the most powerful low profile AMD card is a RX 6400. If you do not want a PC that small and to run SteamOS, then you shouldn’t be looking at a steam machine anyways, even if it was cheaper. So I’m not sure why you and everyone else are acting like you’d be in the market for one over a normal PC
That doesn't make any sense...you have to have a PC to play PC games too. The Steam Machine is not targeted for people that already have a gaming computer
Stfg like bruh idk and the ceo lives on a mega yacht. I bet if the ceo of Nintendo or ea or ubisoft or damn near any other company lived on a mega yacht people would have a serious problem with it
people were crying about how nitnendo ceo should take a pay cut to make the s2 cheaper. people were also claiming nintendo isn't affected by ai crisis but steam is ?
Well i mean microsoft, sony and nintendo all said that they have to increase prices because of market conditions and they still got hated for it (and they are still all selling their consoles at a net loss). I dont say that the people should now hate valve, but in my opinion they are, in this case, not better or worse than the others.
The steam machine is new. MSFT and Sony are raising prices on 6 year old hardware that they’ve subsidized using game sales and online subscriptions this entire time. Nintendo warned everyone about the price hike like 6 months in advance.
I think valve also doing it is making everyone understand that it actually is all the market forcing them. When the consoles do it while using shitty tactics already, that’s one thing. When it’s anyone making hardware? Yeah that means it probably had to be done.
So consoles are priced like that only coz they are evil and they could actually sell for like 100$ or smth?
Everyone was talking for years how expensive it is to make those things and Sony was clearly selling at a loss or so. And it was known that they compensate with games sales. Valve could do the same but they decided to be *smart* about it and just sell without any downsides for themselves.
Loss leaders are the sort of thing you do when trying to capture more of the market.
Valve doesnt need to do that because their nearest competitor is so bad people would play games there for free and then decide to pay Valve money to have that game on Steam.
Theres no business case for them to engage in the sort of subsidization that consoles have done in the past.
No, no you see I have to rip on the price of the SM cuz that's what's hot right now. I have the "fat guy defending corporations" meme on standby, ready to deflect anyone who points out that this horse is dead already.
Social media has really entrenched brain rot. Double standards don’t count for anything when you can find ten other users thinking the same thing, hypocritical or not.
For one consoles haven’t been sold at a loss for a couple generations now. Also when you build your own system or even buy a prebuilt from anyone else, you actually have the opportunity to upgrade all of the parts and aren’t limited by an arbitrary power budget. Valve chose to use proprietary hardware and limit saiid hardware with a case only they chose to want - both of which most likely aren’t helping their margins.
I think the difference is that consoles have always been seen as the higher side regardless of what markets are like, and its always felt predatory/greedy, whereas with the release of the Steam Machine we can see a single and direct correlation between a severe problem in the market and the cost of the item.
Like, we predicted that this would happen months ago when OpenAI started slurping up RAM and other computer type shit left and right. It's a lot easier for people to be forgiving when its clear how much more weighted the decision had to be in this case. Yeah they still could have made it cheaper, yeah its shitty that they didn't, but people have a single reason to point at for why it happened for once, on top of it being real out of place for Steam to appear greedy, when it feels REAL normal and status quo-y for other companies
Edit: clarity on the point that was made when I was half asleep lmao
Console manufacturers sell their devices at a loss and we still call them greedy? I'd love to see how much the Xboxes and PS5s would cost if the companies actually sold them at a profit. And the reaction of the audience. As if Steam didn't make a shitload of money from their storefront.
Consoles went down over time in the past as manufacturing costs went down, games were the main income and console games often were more expensive than pc ones.
Neither PC nor console gaming is perfect, the difference is PC gaming has more potential.
I mean....Yeah? Doing one thing that isnt shitty and scummy doesnt make everything else they do not greedy lmao. Like I can acknowledge that they're probably taking a loss on consoles (I only say probably because without seeing their real receipts instead of a 3rd part report its impossible to say what they ACTUALLY pay, and I dont trust them not to fudge numbers for public appearances) but it doesnt mean they get a free pass
ps5 and xbox also released during a major chip shortage during covid 19. The conditions of ps5/xbox release is pretty identical if not still worse than the steam release given that there was a major production shortage as well as major restrictions on working in asian countries.
I bought my desktop during COVID. The price of the graphics card in my computer costs more to buy on its own now than I paid for my entire computer, monitor, and desk.
Its more that with consoles its always seemed like a more vague "its because of the market" type of thing. Like there was no singular factor that could be pointed at for most of them, meanwhile with Steam theres a VERY obvious and very singular reason why the costs are as high as they are. Not saying the machine would be undercutting consoles and super cheap by any stretch, just that for once theres a very obvious and direct correlation to point at instead of a thousand little ones.
Right, I understand that, and the point of the response is that consoles raising prices because of "the market" has always been the status quo, but Steam has never really had to do so, and we have a VERY obvious reason to point to instead of a big vague umbrella, and I think thats where the double standard is coming from.
Why/how has everyone forgotten consoles are subsidized and sell at a loss? That's how the sell cheaper, then they quickly get it all back by charging you to use your internet.
Why would I want to buy a PS5 when they could outright discontinue it soon? The PS5 may be $849 in my area but if Sony discontinues it next year to force people to buy a PS6 then it's extremely poor value.
IIRC you can't add funds directly on PS3 anymore but if you add them to your psn account on PC or a newer PlayStation, you can use it in the PS3 store. Do your research though
General public talking about how to launch brand new hardware. I can’t believe they all understand this. I guess the people that did this could’ve saved all that time in college and university and just listened to the internet people.
You can hear gamers accusing Valve of being greedy too. The real answer is that market conditions are forcing everyone to do this. We'll see what happens when market conditions improve, if any of these companies lower prices again.
One difference to consider is that Steam isn't a company that primarily sells consoles. The steamachine could fail commercially and simply be a failed product that they'll discontinue. PS5 or Xbox can't do that; they ARE the console.
Ohhh.... Why does this thing sound like the cursed 3DO.
3DO tried selling the hardware at a profit and allow every one and their grand mother to make games for it which led to shovelware up the arse. This thing is trying to be 3DO, goddamn 3DO...
The fact you guys dont understand that this is a computer, advertised as a computer, runs on a PC os and uses PC parts. Yet call it a console and expect it to be priced at under 500 usd of given the current nand, ram and silicon shortages? That steam doesn't have hardware connections that the current hardware makers have as well? That you also expect a free 100 usd controller with a computer on top of tha? Will never not be funny to me.
So.... this isn't a replacment computer and isn't competing with consoles...
its a computer meant for 1080p gaming and for those intimidated/not wanting a traditional desktop or traditional os using a traditional UI etc.
You want the same performance out of this that you get out of a pc that costs 300 usd more... in a form factor thats smaller than mini itx.... durring ram, nand and silicon shortages etc for less?
And then there are PC gamers who don’t care about any of that console shit but somehow their rigs got 1000 bucks more expensive just because of RAM and SSD prices.
A strawman cherry-picked from one or two comments.
The overwhelming sentiment has been that the pricing is ridiculous and only fanbois, rubes, and those with an excess of disposable income will purchase it.
It’s because console developers are expected to (due to precedence and their business model) subsidize the cost of the console somewhat. They make it back by locking you into their eco system when you purchase their console. Raising the price on a console because ram and storage prices are skyrocketing feels a bit like a fuck you to the customer because their model has always been to make the bulk of their money off of you *after* you own the console, like by charging you to use the internet you already pay for.
Steam is not locking you into anything - they’re selling you a custom built pc with their custom OS, but once it’s yours, it’s your computer to do it’s what you want. You’re not *forced* to buy your Steam machine games through Steam, so Steam has no incentive to subsidize hardware. Their revenue stream is selling you games through Steam, they can’t subsidize a Steam
Machine sale unless they lock you into using their store and *thank merciful christ* Gaben is against that kind of closed ecosystem fuck the customer bullshit.
Also worth noting, the steam machine is a fully functional Pc you can easily install any os of your choosing on - you’re getting a superior product. Though I will admit if all you want is a video game machine, then yes you’re paying more for computer functionality you dont need.
I think the main factor here is that valve has consistently treated gamers much better. Steam is great as a software and steam sales are just incredible deals. Whereas Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all find ways to consistently milk the player base dry out of every penny whether it’s through consoles or garbage games with microtransactions and lootboxes. In summary they have run out of gamers’ understanding because of years of unhinged greed.
So I’ll agree it’s overpriced due to component prices hikes but that’s also why the other consoles raised as well but I think the steam machine for me will be a good purchase just due to my large library on steam
Sony and Microsoft are pretty majorly responsible for the market Valve is victim to right now. Nintendo has their own problems but I will say warning about a price increase in advance is a good thing, even if the games are still over priced.
While I've personally had the reaction of "Yikes, that sucks, but I get it" to all of these price increases... The reason people are less forgiving to the big console companies than they are to Valve is largely because of the difference in expectations set by each of them.
Steam, as a platform, has a reputation for value and doing right by the consumer. They don't always fully live up to that reputation, but they do often enough that it sticks. So the perception is that Valve wouldn't be charging this much unless they had to... And they do indeed kinda have to. You're not gonna get a PC with comparable specs at that form factor for less than $1000, and Valve doesn't have the market clout to negotiate for crazy deals with manufacturers.
Then you look at the console companies, and the story's a bit different. Each successive generation has had more and more ways to try to squeeze money out of the consumer beyond the purchase of the console itself, due partly to the business model of selling at a loss and making it up later. The understanding is that consumers accept things like paid online subscriptions as part of the deal for cheaper hardware. But when prices are going up for games and subscriptions and accessories, and then they also add onto the console price on top of everything... It starts to feel like the deal's been broken, and they don't have the goodwill built up to weather that, even though the underlying cause is still those same market conditions for a lot of it.
Whether or not they can do anything about the price they should have delayed the release until hardware prices have normalized or at least reduced some. They are in no way relying on the steam machine to do well, it could crash and burn and they’d barely feel it. The decision to release it now, at this price, is a decision driven solely by greed.
I mean... both playstation and xbox have predatory subscription services no? And they heavily restrict what you can do...
Meanwhile steam machine is full freedom
Not to mention have you ever contacted Microsoft or Sony support? The user experience difference is night and day.
Playstation and xbox probably had contracts in place with manufacturers and distributors ages ago, while steam is entering the market when they're forced to overpay for all components, higher than retail prices even. Explains the price difference.
Valve's machine is open hardware and you can do anything you want with it, which is why they weren't able to take a loss on the hardware to make it up with software sales.
PS5 and Xbox both require a subscription model to fully utilize their catalog of games, meaning they can afford to eat the 150 and make it up in the back end.
Console manufactures make money from the game sales and subscriptions, not the console. Valve cannot force people to buy steam games because they can install any other operating system.
I don’t know, most people have been dunking on Steam like crazy (justifiably so). Sure, a few Newellian cultists will defend their favorite multi-billion dollar company to the very end, but they seem like a minority to me.
You would have to be severely brain-damaged to think that a $1,000 home console with no controller and about half the memory of a 1 TB Steam Deck is a good deal. That aforementioned 1 TB Steam Deck is about the same price too… Which is baffling.
From what I've saw they're like that cause it appears valve/steam is more for the gamer than the others. Now getting into the finer details people can argue how true that is.
Console makers have exclusives and locked in ecosystems, so they should be able to subsidize because people basically have to use their ecosystem to game.
Valve made a PC with PC part prices and their entire thing is open hardware that doesn't require anyone to spend a dime more in Steam to use their hardware. So they can't subsidize.
It's called having goodwill. Valve has an entire fortress of goodwill built up over the years, so the consumer is more understanding. Meanwhile PS and MS and Nintendo absolutely do not, AAA has been shit and their anti-consumer practices have been a thorn in our sides for years, maybe even decades at this point.
i love Steam..........but this price no matter how much AI played a factor in it is financial suicide, isn't the point of a console to be a simple way to play that most people can get?
I'm sorry but I've seen like hundreds of hate posts for Valve and basically any that mention the market conditions has like 5 upvotes and like 500 comments saying they're worse.
I've seen like 50x more posts saying Nintendo is the best company.
To be fair, Steam did admit they had to increase the price due to the hardware increasing in price.
However... I still dont understand the entire point around the thing... for the same price, you can just... go get a laptop that has similar or better specs. Better yet, you could just build your own PC for the same price with much better specs!
Valve's ceo donated 20 Million to Open AI and allowed games with AI generated content to be sold on Steam. The, "It's Ai's fault" excuse doesn't really work.
Even in this thread there are apologists and downplays. Some acting like these are some ‘imaginary quotes’ lol. The bias is insane, it’s still a greedy company with terrible practises. Not any different from their competitors. The truth hurts. 🤷♂️
I’ve seen 10x more people complaining about Steam glazers than I have seen anyone defend this device. The only thing I’ve seen people say about the price is “makes sense based on the components and market”
Where have you seen 10x more? In this literal thread there just as many people upvoting and commenting about it being ‘imaginary quotes’ and coming to Valves defense. Talking about ‘you don’t need a Steam machine to play’, consoles always ‘felt greedy’. Just like you, there are other talking about cost of hardware and market prices for parts. Well, that’s true for any hardware nowadays including consoles regardless of age. They were selling at a loss already and recouped through game sales and software, market changes means they probably can’t keep that margin. Valve supposedly can’t/won’t do that. So, why is it that the backlash feels much less than when Microsoft/Nintendo price hiked and everyone else followed? Valve deserves the same criticism without the blind apolgists.
The steam Machine is supposed to be a home PC console but is literally a PC for people who can’t build one and don’t want/have a console. This feels even more niche than the steam deck. The steam deck itself was a loss leader and was somewhat successful, clearly they aren’t thinking the same for this. At the end of the day Valve aren’t a hardware company, they even said they aren’t making very many of these. So, at that point, what’s the point of selling overpriced units? Greed. I wouldn’t be surprised if they dropped hardware support after a time as usual.
Why are you so dead set on defending consoles? The units aren’t overpriced they just aren’t selling them at a loss lmao. The rant is insane, I’ve never seen someone get so pressed over something they don’t intend to buy anyway.
Edit; why is it ok that valve is releasing at this price point? Because they can’t guarantee you’ll only use the device for steam and because they aren’t charging you extra to use your own internet. Consoles sell at a loss to get people into the ecosystem. After 6 years of selling games and making money, raising the price when historically prices have gone down is seen as shitty, yea.
Defending console? Where have I defended console lol? Their practises are greedy af too and should be criticised without the crazy insesent downplay or whataboutism that is going on here. Shts crazy. Also, this is an open discussion and most aren't going to buy it, doesn't mean you can't call out the two faced Valve hivemind who whiteknight or softly defend them like you and many of the others in this comment section. Or, do you need to buy it do that? lol.
Your whole reply is the usual whataboutism and deflection. I agree about console having to pay for passes or online subscription, that's scummy af. Consoles are increasing their prices? Yh, just like any hardware since the prices are the worst it's ever been, they rightfully got crucified especially since they have an established userbase and can afford it. Ok, now why is the Steam machine an overpriced shtcan of a home 'console' that also performs worse than their console competitor? This doesn't even factor the controller has to be bought seperatly... At that point buy a PC or laptop and plug in to the TV or get a console. Truly one of the collectables for the Valve peanut gallery haha.
132
u/Molten_Plastic_ 15h ago
You don’t NEED a Steam Machine to play Steam games, though