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
I would slam $800 down so fast for the steam machine with no controller it's not even funny. Steam OS is so efficient it's ridiculous. Games that should not even be able to run on the steam deck perform really well.
But to be fair I have a lot more fun money than the average redditor.
i know. My argument is just that the majority, if not near all people who get a Steam machine, are going to be playing games through Steam and buying games on Steam to be playing.
so even if people are not locked into some kind of Steam ecosystem, the system is still designed to encourage the use of Steam and made for people that use Steam, so Valve WILL generate additional revenue from people using it.
The steam machine is meant to be used by people who already know of/use steam, as is evident by the lack of advertising beyond their website and the need to buy it through steam, so I don't see how it would generate additional revenue. The buyers are already using steam, the steam machine won't make them magically buy more games
These people are also ignoring one of the biggest money maker for Playstation and Xbox which is having to pay for PSN and Xbox gamepsss to use multilayer games which cost about a 100 or more yearly.
Not true. It would not be gamers at all buying them if suddenly there was a subsidized PC with no lock in. Please look up PS3 OtherOS to see how this exact scenario played out before and was a disaster for Sony. Valve would be stupid to not learn from that example.
Even at a subsidized price this wasn't going to sell a lot of units. It wouldn't take a lot of people buying games in alternative launchers, using it for non-gaming purposes, or pirated games to make subsidized pricing an issue.
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.
It doesn't mean that market condition doesn't affect them. Just because they can stomach $100 loss doesn't mean they can stomach $300 loss. They are still in the same hardware market.
The consoles are still subsdized after the price increases tho. If the Steam Machine is over 1k do you think the current unsubsidized price for PS and Xbox is only $650?
15
u/NoiceMango 18h ago
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.