Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread

[Madmick]

I didn't say it's not a better PC at the price point, that's why noted that the the lowest priced high volume prebuild is this one, which leaves Valve plenty of room to raise prices if it's planning to compete with desktops. RTX 5050 doesn't do much volume for obvious reasons, hence I picked RTX 5060 desktops.

What I did say was substantially lower than $499 isn't likely, unless Valve intends on taking a bath on hardware. $599-$699 would be my guess, since that gives Valve more room for partners down the road, plus the uncertainty of NAND and DRAM supply right now. I

Bullshit, what you said was this:

As always, the question is how much of a bath is Steam willing to take on hardware in order to protect its software moat. Interesting the GPU isn't bigger, guess they couldn't/didn't want to pony up for that big an order with AMD and compete more directly with console and PC.

That was your initial assessment, and that's what I disagreed with.

As I've shown, the Steam Machine is clearly positioned to compete directly with the consoles. Not only in processing power, but more importantly, in terms of price. Only after I highlighted that the primary detriment of the original Steam Machines, apart from a less mature SteamOS, was their terrible pricing, did you begin talking about a $499 price which is the same as the PS5 Digital, and less than the PS5 ($549) & Xbox Series X ($599/$649). Yet your initial reaction that they couldn't "pony up" for a bigger GPU to "compete more directly" with consoles and PCs clearly doesn't make sense, especially in the context of that price. A prediction of $499-$599 clearly positions it as a direct competitor based on price range.

Furthermore, why would it require "taking a bath"? Sony has actually made money on hardware sales. That has been one of their new goals in contradiction to historical precedent; they seek to turn a profit on the consoles themselves. If they made a profit on the PS5 at $399/$499, and still apparently do at $499/$549, then why is it so inconceivable Steam could make a profit with a lesser machine than the PS5 while undercutting the PC market when they still have hundreds of dollars of room to spare beyond that $499 price point? The following was written before Sony's price hike:

Sony is indeed selling PlayStation 5 consoles at a profit. Or they were, as of August 2021. This profitability hasn't remained the same, though; on the contrary. Profits on individual PS5 sales have fluctuated and lessened as time goes by.

It's a fact that PlayStation 5 consoles are now more expensive to make than they were previously.

Sony has repeatedly said that PS5 console profit sales have "deteriorated" across multiple quarters (that is to say, lessened), leading to dips in operating profit during critical periods. These drops came at a bad time for Sony, right as the company was starting to pay towards the $3.7 billion acquisition of Bungie, which was actually approved earlier than Sony had originally expected.

2. Profit Maximization to Offset Losses - Sony makes a long-term strategy to sell PS5 at the highest profits possible​

Sony has responded to these higher costs in a number of strategic ways.

The first was to make all PlayStation 5 consoles technically digital by default--something that is reflected with the PlayStation 5 Pro. Instead of having two separate console models, Sony has made a single PlayStation 5 Slim model that has an interchangeable disc drive. This can reduce costs in the long term and alleviate the need for dual SKU production.

The second major strategic innovation was the introduction of the PS5 Slim's new revised form factor, which emphasizes size and weight reductions.

Sony has significantly reduced the weight of its new PS5 Slim models in an effort to reduce costs across manufacturing lines--lighter consoles were achieved through reductions in specific extraneous cooling solutions.

Lighter consoles also mean less weight to ship overseas, which lowers the cost of freight shipping. When Sony ships hundreds of thousands of pounds of consumer electronics to multiple regions worldwide, every ounce matters.

There's also the new 6nm Oberon Plus N6 SoC that's found in the PS5 Slim. The N6 Node is actually part of the N7 family at TSMC, but it has better yields and can be produced more efficiently, thereby effectively reducing long-term costs through the reduction of wasted chips.

This is the main purpose of any console revision. The first line of systems are always meant to get the consoles out the door and fill out the installed base, and then the new models aim at maximizing profits through cost control. This is something that Sony has been doing for decades.

 

[avenue94]

As I've shown, the Steam Machine is clearly positioned to compete directly with the consoles. Not only in processing power, but more importantly, in terms of price. Only after I highlighted that the primary detriment of the original Steam Machines, apart from a less mature SteamOS, was their terrible pricing, did you begin talking about a $499 price which is the same as the PS5 Digital, and less than the PS5 ($549) & Xbox Series X ($599/$649). Yet your initial reaction that they couldn't "pony up" for a bigger GPU to "compete more directly" with consoles and PCs clearly doesn't make sense, especially in the context of that price. A prediction of $499-$599 clearly positions it as a direct competitor based on price range.

We'll have new consoles in a few years, which means a 7600M isn't going to be directly competing with a PS6 or even an new Xbox. We also don't know how much inventory Valve can get this time around, so who knows when it will actually hit the market in volume.

I didn't say the Steam Machine won't directly compete with console, I said I was surprised it wasn't more directly positioned to compete. You're the one who brought up the $499 price (or even blow it), I responded to that comment.

Furthermore, why would it require "taking a bath"? Sony has actually made money on hardware sales. That has been one of their new goals in contradiction to historical precedent; they seek to turn a profit on the consoles themselves. If they made a profit on the PS5 at $399/$499, and still apparently do at $499/$549, then why is it so inconceivable Steam could make a profit with a lesser machine than the PS5 while undercutting the PC market when they still have hundreds of dollars of room to spare beyond that $499 price point? The following was written before Sony's price hike:

There's thing thing called economies of scale, of which Steam doesn't have compared to Microsoft or PS. Now, they do benefit more from using off the shelf parts and not having to foot as huge NRE bill, but I'm not sure that's enough to offset the former plus the AI shock to component supply and pricing. Pricing was only one reason the original Steam Machine flopped, and it wasn't even the main one.

It took PS over a year to get unit cost into the black, and we know that the Steam Deck's entry-level tier was likely sold at break even or a loss. Not to mention that your comparison to PS5 doesn't make a lot of sense since Sony hit that with volume and redesigns, both of which aren't available to to Valve out of the gate.

 

[Madmick]

We'll have new consoles in a few years, which means a 7600M isn't going to be directly competing with a PS6 or even an new Xbox.

LOL.

Concession accepted.

 

[avenue94]

LOL.

Concession accepted.

What did I say that you disagreed with?

You appear to be arguing with yourself here more than anything else.

 

[Madmick]

What did I say that you disagreed with?

You appear to be arguing with yourself here more than anything else.

I've already explained to you what I disagreed with. Now you're changing your argument to "they won't compete with consoles" to "they won't compete with future consoles", and scampering to hide behind "they don't have the same economy of scale!" nonsense when it's shown to you Sony has profited off roughly equivalent hardware with hundreds of dollars of room to spare against PCs powerful enough that it would render the Steam Machine unattractive for someone looking to get into PC gaming.

Derp. We get it. It's not going to be as powerful as the PS5 or XSX, much less the PS5 Pro, or their future consoles. It won't sell as many units. That doesn't mean it isn't a competitor. It's a goddamn gaming box that connects to your TV expected to arrive in the $500-$600ish price range. It also doesn't mean Steam will have to "take a bath" to make it attractive to prospective PC neophytes.

 

[avenue94]

I've already explained to you what I disagreed with. Now you're changing your argument to "they won't compete with consoles" to "they won't compete with future consoles", and scampering to hide behind "they don't have the same economy of scale!" nonsense when it's shown to you Sony has profited off roughly equivalent hardware with hundreds of dollars of room to spare against PCs powerful enough that it would render the Steam Machine unattractive for someone looking to get into PC gaming.

Here come's the classic MadMick lying. I didn't say it won't compete with consoles. I said it competes with consoles but that I was surprised it wasn't competing even more directly by going properly semi-custom (or a better GPU), particularly since Steam won't benefit from console game dev optimizations.

Do you think ODM's and AMD price components the same whether you order 5 million units or 100 million, or how many units NRE is spread over affect per/unit cost?

As always, the question is how much of a bath is Steam willing to take on hardware in order to protect its software moat. Interesting the GPU isn't bigger, guess they couldn't/didn't want to pony up for that big an order with AMD and compete more directly with console and PC.

Derp. We get it. It's not going to be as powerful as the PS5 or XSX, much less the PS5 Pro, or their future consoles. It won't sell as many units. That doesn't mean it isn't a competitor. It's a goddamn gaming box that connects to your TV expected to arrive in the $500-$600ish price range. It also doesn't mean Steam will have to "take a bath" to make it attractive to prospective PC neophytes.

Once again, I never said Steam doesn't have a competitor to consoles. Nor did I say they will take a bath, I said it depends on pricing. Your argument for sub-$499, for example, would probably lead to selling at a loss in this current environment.

Are you going to concede you suck at reading and/or were lying? Or do I need to remind you about the time you lied so badly in the ROG Ally X thread you got called out for being pants on fire status?

The Legion Go S is substantially cheaper, probably by about $150 to manufacture.

My poor reading comprehension, LOL. Bro, you just asserted the Lenovo Legion Go S would cost $150 to manufacture because you didn't even read your own damn jpeg showing the cost of SSD & RAM.

Have the good sense to know when you've been KTFO'd.

My mistake, then. I concede that point.

 

[Madmick]

Here come's the classic MadMick lying. I didn't say it won't compete with consoles. I said it competes with consoles but that I was surprised it wasn't competing even more directly by going properly semi-custom (or a better GPU), particularly since Steam won't benefit from console game dev optimizations.

Do you think ODM's and AMD price components the same whether you order 5 million units or 100 million, or how many units NRE is spread over affect per/unit cost?


Once again, I never said Steam doesn't have a competitor to consoles. Nor did I say they will take a bath, I said it depends on pricing. Your argument for sub-$499, for example, would probably lead to selling at a loss in this current environment.

Are you going to concede you suck at reading and/or were lying? Or do I need to remind you about the time you lied so badly in the ROG Ally X thread you got called out for being pants on fire status?

All I did was highlight your ignorance. No need to be upset.

 

[avenue94]

All I did was highlight your ignorance. No need to be upset.

There it is, the classic Madmick dick tuck when you get called out for obviously lying.

 

[Madmick]

There it is, the classic Madmick dick tuck when you get called out for obviously lying.

LOL, what more is there to say? No hypothetical BOM to hide behind this time (even though you ultimately were forced to concede that argument due to your incontrovertible overestimate of the BOM which most deliciously revealed your stunning ignorance of physical computer assembly). No, it's right there this time. PS5 was and has remained profitable as a piece of hardware from $399, and now $499. Hundreds of dollars of headroom for the Steam Machine to still be attractive as a purchase without Valve needing to "take a bath".

Also, no, redesigns don't change this. The reason Sony transitioned to the Slim form factor was to reduce weight and cubic footprint to reduce shipping & cooling costs. Guess what? The Steam Machine weighs exactly the same as the PS5 Slim Digital ($499), and has just 62% of the cubic volume. I highlighted that in the Tweaktown article, but your dumbass didn't read it. Derp.

You transparently throw out this pivot to the argument it won't compete with future consoles after it was shown how respectably powerful the 7600M is to the current crop; before doubling back to cling to your language it won't "directly" compete despite that the price range puts it in direct competition, the fact it is a set-top gaming box puts it in direct competition, and the fact it will be capable of playing virtually their entire multi-platform libraries puts it in direct competition. You're talking about it like it's the Playstation Portal or the Logitech G Cloud, LOL.

Your overreaction reveals your insecurity because my response was such a minor objection to your initial reaction. But nothing you said makes sense. Even "the question is how much of a bath is Steam willing to take on hardware in order to protect its software moat" becomes ridiculous under scrutiny. What the hell are you talking about? Because you've been ranting about how few units it will move, its pitiful scale of economy, yeah? So how in the hell does Steam "protect its software moat" as the primary purveyor of PC games against rivals like Epic by moving so few Steam Machines when the total number of PCs in existence dwarfs all of the consoles combined-- not merely Playstations? Even if we limited it to the total number of PCs as powerful or more powerful than the Steam Machine this figure would be enormous. What the hell will they be moating by controlling a sliver of their prospective customer base?

Sit down.

 

[Zazen]

Steam Deck total sales are 4 million. This isn't competing with consoles, this will sell a few million at best in my opinion. The main issue is the hardware is weaker than a base PS5 and Xbox Series X. People who game on consoles are already invested in their ecosystem and aren't going to buy an additional console that's either weaker or doesn't offer the exclusives they desire. It's also far too weak for people that already play on PC and those will just stick to their computer. I just don't see an audience for this.

 

[avenue94]

LOL, what more is there to say? No hypothetical BOM to hide behind this time (even though you ultimately were forced to concede that argument due to your incontrovertible overestimate of the BOM which most deliciously revealed your stunning ignorance of physical computer assembly). No, it's right there this time. PS5 was and has remained profitable as a piece of hardware from $399, and now $499. Hundreds of dollars of headroom for the Steam Machine to still be attractive as a purchase without Valve needing to "take a bath".

I'll note that my guess at the Xbox Ally's price was fairly accurate, whereas you missed it by $200. (I was also correct i noting that the rumored $899 price wasn't final.)

I have no issue admitting I'm wrong in an estimate (which I did).

I was also correct on the Xbox Ally vs Xbox Ally X, they have different chasses/carcasses. Aside from the triggers, note the different cooling solutions and PCBs in teardowns.
Xbox Ally X
Xbox Ally

I wouldn't be surprised if it hits 999 or even more. They were the slowest to shift production and are last in line with a lot of ODMs outside of China, so they've had real trouble hitting laptop volumes in the US.

I'm skeptical they will charge $900+ as some are speculating.

It seems more likely the base version will be around $499, and the higher end version will be around $799 (same launch MSRPs as previous Ally ROG devices respective to tier).

I wonder if people realize(ie the leaks everyone got excited about) that Best Buy tags are e-paper and quite easy to change on the fly.

O course, there's nothing wrong with getting an estimate wrong. The blatant lying you love, however, is much more embarrassing.

Also, no, redesigns don't change this. The reason Sony transitioned to the Slim form factor was to reduce weight and cubic footprint to reduce shipping & cooling costs. Guess what? The Steam Machine weighs exactly the same as the PS5 Slim Digital ($499), and has just 62% of the cubic volume. I highlighted that in the Tweaktown article, but your dumbass didn't read it. Derp.

For Sony, a redesign helped reduce their costs after they sold at a loss for at least the first year. Valve's major cost isn't going to be shipping, that's actually relatively cheap. Their major disadvantage versus consoles is economies of scale.

AMD offers volume discounts, as do most suppliers and ODMs. Additionally, spreading out our NRE over 50 million units drives down your unit cost more than spreading it out over 5 million units. This is basic business logic.

You transparently throw out this pivot to the argument it won't compete with future consoles after it was shown how respectably powerful the 7600M is to the current crop; before doubling back to cling to your language it won't "directly" compete despite that the price range puts it in direct competition, the fact it is a set-top gaming box puts it in direct competition, and the fact it will be capable of playing virtually their entire multi-platform libraries puts it in direct competition.

Again, dishonesty per usual.
1. I didn't mentioned specific consoles because I was broadly speaking about console and PC. Steam Machine will compete with current consoles and their successors, just like the Steam Deck competed with multiple generations of handhelds.
2. I literally said the Steam Deck competes with console and PC. If you need to do "more" of something, that means you are already doing that something. You can't have more of nothing or zero.

Interesting the GPU isn't bigger, guess they couldn't/didn't want to pony up for that big an order with AMD and compete more directly with console and PC.

Your overreaction reveals your insecurity because my response was such a minor objection to your initial reaction. But nothing you said makes sense. Even "the question is how much of a bath is Steam willing to take on hardware in order to protect its software moat" becomes ridiculous under scrutiny. What the hell are you talking about? Because you've been ranting about how few units it will move, its pitiful scale of economy, yeah? So how in the hell does Steam "protect its software moat" as the primary purveyor of PC games against rivals like Epic by moving so few Steam Machines when the total number of PCs in existence dwarfs all of the consoles combined-- not merely Playstations? Even if we limited it to the total number of PCs as powerful or more powerful than the Steam Machine this figure would be enormous. What the hell will they be moating by controlling a sliver of their prospective customer base?

Sit down.

Where did I rant about how few units it will move? Moving 5 or 10 million units would be impressive, and that still doesn't' come close to console units because consoles are a different economic model. Any computer has "pitiful" economies of scale if you compare it to consoles, just like consoles have pitiful economies of scale compared to smartphones.

With Steam Machine, the goal is to keep building up momentum for Steam OS, with the goal here being to sell enough units that DHL are convinced that Steam OS hardware is a viable alternative to Windows.

Same as the Steam Deck. They didn't make much money on the devices, but they were able to impress enough that the world's largest OEM initiated discussions about Steam OS handhelds (Valve wasn't the one who started that discussion).

 

[Madmick]

I have no issue admitting I'm wrong in an estimate (which I did).

Yes, and your concession of the argument about overestimating the BOM was accepted.

For Sony, a redesign helped reduce their costs after they sold at a loss for at least the first year. Valve's major cost isn't going to be shipping, that's actually relatively cheap. Their major disadvantage versus consoles is economies of scale.

LOL, backpedal much. Back to scales of economy! FYI, the primary difference in the first PS5 console revision was reducing the cooler size to reduce the weight. You know, one of the things I just mentioned I highlighted in the Tweaktown excerpt you didn't read. Derp. That's why the PS5 Slim is cheaper to make and ship, and at its current $499 price point apparently persists to remain profitable as the article mentioned.

Concession accepted.

AMD offers volume discounts, as do most suppliers and ODMs. Additionally, spreading out our NRE over 50 million units drives down your unit cost more than spreading it out over 5 million units. This is basic business logic.

Again, dishonesty per usual.
1. I didn't mentioned specific consoles because I was broadly speaking about console and PC. Steam Machine will compete with current consoles and their successors, just like the Steam Deck competed with multiple generations of handhelds.
2. I literally said the Steam Deck competes with console and PC. If you need to do "more" of something, that means you are already doing that something. You can't have more of nothing or zero.

Where did I rant about how few units it will move? Moving 5 or 10 million units would be impressive, and that still doesn't' come close to console units because consoles are a different economic model. Any computer has "pitiful" economies of scale if you compare it to consoles, just like consoles have pitiful economies of scale compared to smartphones.

With Steam Machine, the goal is to keep building up momentum for Steam OS, with the goal here being to sell enough units that DHL are convinced that Steam OS hardware is a viable alternative to Windows.

Same as the Steam Deck. They didn't make much money on the devices, but they were able to impress enough that the world's largest OEM initiated discussions about Steam OS handhelds (Valve wasn't the one who started that discussion).

How does 5-10 million units "protect its software moat" against an estimated 1.4 billion Windows PCs in existence? LMAO. So stupid. Historically, the console makers, when they have sold hardware at a loss, have done so because they controlled 100% of the marketplace. 100% of sales of Playstation games to Playstation owners went through Sony licensing. To put a game on the Playstation, developers/publishers had to go through Sony. Full stop.

Steam can sell hardware at a loss if they so choose because every game sale on the device when it's used as it is shipped out-of-the-box makes them money. That simple. No need to "protect its software moat".

 

[Madmick]

Steam Deck total sales are 4 million. This isn't competing with consoles, this will sell a few million at best in my opinion. The main issue is the hardware is weaker than a base PS5 and Xbox Series X. People who game on consoles are already invested in their ecosystem and aren't going to buy an additional console that's either weaker or doesn't offer the exclusives they desire. It's also far too weak for people that already play on PC and those will just stick to their computer. I just don't see an audience for this.

Respective number of sales don't determine whether or not products are direct competitors. Modelo and Budweiser may sell a bajillion beers, but that doesn't mean that every cheap Americanized lager you see in the aisle that sells 1/100th the volume isn't directly competing for a consumer's dollars.

 

[avenue94]

LOL, backpedal much. Back to scales of economy! FYI, the primary difference in the first PS5 console revision was reducing the cooler size to reduce the weight. You know, one of the things I just mentioned I highlighted in the Tweaktown excerpt you didn't read. Derp.

What backpedaling? I've been consistent that Valve will not benefit from the economies of scales that a console does, and thus their costs will inherently be higher per unit. Sony improved the cost structure with the redesign (and probably the reduced defect rates that come with any mass production over time). Weight savings weren't the primary reason. Even reduced volume is outweighed by the redesign itself.

You plainly missed the part where the saved weight comes from swapping a larger copper heatsink for a smaller aluminum. Guess which metal is substantially cheaper...

That's why the PS5 Slim is cheaper to make and ship, and at its current $499 price point apparently persists to remain profitable as the article mentioned.

The PS5 Slim was not cheaper than the launch PS5. Do you want to try again while being so confidently wrong?

Concession accepted.

Allow me to redirect you to my original post on this you keep ignoring when you stick your head in the sand and project your poor reading abilities.

It took PS over a year to get unit cost into the black, and we know that the Steam Deck's entry-level tier was likely sold at break even or a loss. Not to mention that your comparison to PS5 doesn't make a lot of sense since Sony hit that with volume and redesigns, both of which aren't available to to Valve out of the gate.

How does 5-10 million units "protect its software moat" against an estimated 1.4 billion Windows PCs in existence? LMAO. So stupid. Historically, the console makers, when they have sold hardware at a loss, have done so because they controlled 100% of the marketplace. 100% of sales of Playstation games to Playstation owners went through Sony licensing. To put a game on the Playstation, developers/publishers had to go through Sony. Full stop.

Valve isn't competing with a billion Windows PCs, they care about gaming. Steam isn't just looking at one generation, an OS doesn't explode over night, Deck and Machine give them a foundation to build from.

Steam can sell hardware at a loss if they so choose because every game sale on the device when it's used as it is shipped out-of-the-box makes them money. That simple. No need to "protect its software moat".

Which is why I mentioned the Steam Machine hinge on how much Valve wants to protect the Steam / Steam OS ecosystem. The point of Valve's hardware is to get people to play more, spend more and on top of that eek out a bit more money from Steam OS. It's also the second biggest refresh cycle in decades, hence it's a good time to try and sell hardware while Microsoft is more vulnerable than usual.

Insurance in case game subscriptions take off doesn't hurt either.

 

[Madmick]

What backpedaling? I've been consistent that Valve will not benefit from the economies of scales that a console does, and thus their costs will inherently be higher per unit. Sony improved the cost structure with the redesign (and probably the reduced defect rates that come with any mass production over time). Weight savings weren't the primary reason. Even reduced volume is outweighed by the redesign itself.

You plainly missed the part where the saved weight comes from swapping a larger copper heatsink for a smaller aluminum. Guess which metal is substantially cheaper...

The PS5 Slim was not cheaper than the launch PS5. Do you want to try again while being so confidently wrong?

That sentence doesn't say anything about the "launch PS5". The PS5 slim is cheaper because it reduced costs by shedding weight and cubic volume. This was discussed in the Tweaktown article I'm referencing. Look who sucks at reading.

Allow me to redirect you to my original post on this you keep ignoring when you stick your head in the sand and project your poor reading abilities.

Valve isn't competing with a billion Windows PCs, they care about gaming. Steam isn't just looking at one generation, an OS doesn't explode over night, Deck and Machine give them a foundation to build from.

Which is why I mentioned the Steam Machine hinge on how much Valve wants to protect the Steam / Steam OS ecosystem. The point of Valve's hardware is to get people to play more, spend more and on top of that eek out a bit more money from Steam OS. It's also the second biggest refresh cycle in decades, hence it's a good time to try and sell hardware while Microsoft is more vulnerable than usual.

Insurance in case game subscriptions take off doesn't hurt either.

My reading abilities are on point. How many paragraphs does it take to dodge answering how 5-10 million units "protect their software moat"? Do you think you can weasel out of this? "The point of Valve's hardware is to get people to play more, spend more and on top of that eek out a bit more money from Steam OS." That comment has nothing to do with protection of the Steam marketplace as the purveyor of games. Nor does SteamOS competing with Windows. Gamers on WIndows can buy from Steam. You're trying to change your argument.

Tick tock.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Steam Deck total sales are 4 million. This isn't competing with consoles, this will sell a few million at best in my opinion. The main issue is the hardware is weaker than a base PS5 and Xbox Series X. People who game on consoles are already invested in their ecosystem and aren't going to buy an additional console that's either weaker or doesn't offer the exclusives they desire. It's also far too weak for people that already play on PC and those will just stick to their computer. I just don't see an audience for this.

Theyre targeting Deck users who dock it to a display but want something more powerful, Steam/Pc gamers with dated Pc hardware looking for a easy upgrade path and the small number of console players who want access to a much larger games library. Pc gamer looking for a portable handheld solution is the smaller market here.

Performance wise this doesnt come close to my needs. Users these specs are targeting it apparently does. With exclusives, Nintendo is the only one left playing in that field.

 

[GtehMVP]

Theyre targeting Deck users who dock it to a display but want something more powerful, Steam/Pc gamers with dated Pc hardware looking for a easy upgrade path and the small number of console players who want access to a much larger games library. Pc gamer looking for a portable handheld solution is the smaller market here.

Performance wise this doesnt come close to my needs. Users these specs are targeting it apparently does. With exclusives, Nintendo is the only one left playing in that field.

Agreed, there's definitely a market for it, as most popular cards being used on Steam are 3060's to 4060's, and still plenty of 1650 users too. 50+% of users use 1080p monitors too.

There's a large number of budget gamers who would jump at this, (price depending) especially if they have experience with Steam OS.

It's such a lean OS and along with being as simple/intutive to use as a console, it has helped alleviate stuttering in a lot of games with shader caching/compiling, whatever it did for Elden Ring. That was a stutter fest at launch but played beautufully on the Deck. I had even accidentally installed it on my SD card.

This is also another vehicle for Steam OS adoption. Mini pc's are really popular too. I'm sure Valve are banking on other manufacturers to beef up their own lines of mini's, like has happened in handhelds, while adopting their OS.

The living/tv room is an untapped resource for pc gaming. I've been doing it for 2 decades, but not everyone wants to fiddle with windows from their couch.

I still love Windows and will always use it for work, but the minute i can put Steam OS on my pc, I'll buy a separate SSD just for that.

 

[avenue94]

That sentence doesn't say anything about the "launch PS5". The PS5 slim is cheaper because it reduced costs by shedding weight and cubic volume. This was discussed in the Tweaktown article I'm referencing. Look who sucks at reading.

Smaller helps, but the primary cost savings for the Slim vs launch PS5 were a die shrink, consolidating the carcass into one SKU with an add on module and swapping a copper heatsink for a smaller aluminum one.

How much per unit do you think Sony saves shipping PS5 vs PS5 Slim? You plainly don't understand shipping costs, a 2 TEU container from Shanghai to LA costs less than 10 grand. Shipping is a component of unit cost, but one of the smaller ones.

The PS5 Slim was not cheaper than the launch PS5. Do you want to try again while being so confidently wrong?

You ducked this question because you don't know what you're talking about. If the PS5 Slim was cheaper to produce out of the gate, then why did the base version cost $50 more than the launch PS5 in the US? Are you telling me that Sony was pocketing over $50 more in margin per unit?

My reading abilities are on point. How many paragraphs does it take to dodge answering how 5-10 million units "protect their software moat"? Do you think you can weasel out of this? "The point of Valve's hardware is to get people to play more, spend more and on top of that eek out a bit more money from Steam OS." That comment has nothing to do with protection of the Steam marketplace as the purveyor of games. Nor does SteamOS competing with Windows. Gamers on WIndows can buy from Steam. You're trying to change your argument.

Tick tock.

How do you get an an OS to 100 million devices or 500 million devices? You start by getting 5 or 10 million devices on the market.

If SteamOS doesn't compete with Windows, then how come Lenovo offers both a Windows and Steam versions of its handhelds?

It's like you've never heard of attach rate or the ability to plan businesses over years, not just here and now.

 

[avenue94]

Agreed, there's definitely a market for it, as most popular cards being used on Steam are 3060's to 4060's, and still plenty of 1650 users too. 50+% of users use 1080p monitors too.

There's a large number of budget gamers who would jump at this, (price depending) especially if they have experience with Steam OS.

It's such a lean OS and along with being as simple/intutive to use as a console, it has helped alleviate stuttering in a lot of games with shader caching/compiling, whatever it did for Elden Ring. That was a stutter fest at launch but played beautufully on the Deck. I had even accidentally installed it on my SD card.

This is also another vehicle for Steam OS adoption. Mini pc's are really popular too. I'm sure Valve are banking on other manufacturers to beef up their own lines of mini's, like has happened in handhelds, while adopting their OS.

The living/tv room is an untapped resource for pc gaming. I've been doing it for 2 decades, but not everyone wants to fiddle with windows from their couch.

I still love Windows and will always use it for work, but the minute i can put Steam OS on my pc, I'll buy a separate SSD just for that.

I think this will probably be a coffin nail for Asus NUCs, but mini-PCs as a whole are fine. Windows mini-PCs are incredibly rare and not popular, but mac Mini does great. So more of an OS and cost issue, which is where it gets interesting for the Steam Machine.

 

[Madmick]

Smaller helps, but the primary cost savings for the Slim vs launch PS5 were a die shrink, consolidating the carcass into one SKU with an add on module and swapping a copper heatsink for a smaller aluminum one.

How much per unit do you think Sony saves shipping PS5 vs PS5 Slim? You plainly don't understand shipping costs, a 2 TEU container from Shanghai to LA costs less than 10 grand. Shipping is a component of unit cost, but one of the smaller ones.

You ducked this question because you don't know what you're talking about. If the PS5 Slim was cheaper to produce out of the gate, then why did the base version cost $50 more than the launch PS5 in the US? Are you telling me that Sony was pocketing over $50 more in margin per unit?

The article covered this, LOL. It's because of the rising cost of production over time. They profited when the cost for a PS5 Digital was still $399, and now the MSRP despite these strategies to reduce cost is $499. Damn, it's almost like reading could have saved you this embarrassment.

How do you get an an OS to 100 million devices or 500 million devices? You start by getting 5 or 10 million devices on the market.

If SteamOS doesn't compete with Windows, then how come Lenovo offers both a Windows and Steam versions of its handhelds?

It's like you've never heard of attach rate or the ability to plan businesses over years, not just here and now.

So it won't protect its software MOAT.

Concession accepted.