Steam Deck may be the only inexpensive handheld to be made, "ever"

[Zoot]

The platform is wide open and Valve is saying itself that it wants other manufacturers to come out with SteamOS devices of their own. This makes sense because Valve's actual cash cow will always be selling games on Steam, not making hardware. In a way, making the Steam Deck is a distraction that siphons money away from other potential investments in Steam. Gabe Newell has himself said that bearing the cost of the project will be "painful" for Valve in the short term.

But Linus made an interesting point that Valve is not "making it easy" for other manufacturers because the Steam Deck is so aggressively priced. Other manufacturers do not own a big game store cash cow they can rely on to make up for the losses they would likely incur to try to directly compete with the Steam Deck.

These two points leads me to conclude that the aggressive value proposition of the Steam Deck is actually temporary. The first generation model is meant to break in the market, create consumer demand and establish the developer ecosystem by almost giving the devices away for free (at cost). But it is not meant to establish Valve as an unassailable leader in the space. We see this also in the specs of the device which, while impressive for a handheld, are actually "only" on par with existing console technology. It is not "next-gen" hardware meant to create a high barrier to entry for competitors for years to come.

So while Valve has made it so other manufacturers cannot directly compete on price with this model, they are in my estimation leaving the room open for other manufacturers to put out "next-gen" handhelds with higher specs on the market. But, again, because these manufacturers do not have a cash cow like Steam, they will invariably have to charge higher prices.

At this point, Valve will have succeeded in their goal of both 1) establishing the SteamOS platform and therefore their storefront as a competitor to the big names it feels threatened by (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) and 2) having other companies take over the manufacturing of the hardware so it no longer weighs down on their main business of selling games. But because it has succeeded, it also will no longer need to sell devices at such an aggressive price, and nor will any of the other SteamOS device manufacturers. This should result in prices of the devices "reflating" to more standard levels - similar to how Google for a while sold relatively cheap Nexus smartphones to establish Android as a platform, but now sells Pixel smartphones at prices similar to that of the rest of the market.

The first generation Steam Deck thus likely will be the only handheld gaming PC that will be this inexpensively priced.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[Nemesis]

400 dollars is alot of money and pretty much every handheld ever released is below 400 dollars so "may be the only inexpensive handheld to be made" doesnt make any sense?

[Zoot]

Originally posted by Nemesis:

400 dollars is alot of money and pretty much every handheld ever released is below 400 dollars so "may be the only inexpensive handheld to be made" doesnt make any sense?

That's like saying a smartphone is expensive because you can get an old Nokia phone cheaper. That's not how valuation works.

[Nemesis]

Originally posted by Zoot:

Originally posted by Nemesis:

400 dollars is alot of money and pretty much every handheld ever released is below 400 dollars so "may be the only inexpensive handheld to be made" doesnt make any sense?

That's like saying a smartphone is expensive because you can get an old Nokia phone cheaper. That's not how valuation works.

Your argument is "Steam Deck may be the only inexpensive handheld to be made" it costs 400 dollars. The nintendo switch costs 300 dollars. Both of which are far from "inexpensive" but if you consider 400 dollars inexpensive why is the switch not also "inexpensive"?

[Zoot]

Originally posted by Nemesis:

Originally posted by Zoot:

That's like saying a smartphone is expensive because you can get an old Nokia phone cheaper. That's not how valuation works.

Your argument is "Steam Deck may be the only inexpensive handheld to be made" it costs 400 dollars. The nintendo switch costs 300 dollars. Both of which are far from "inexpensive" but if you consider 400 dollars inexpensive why is the switch not also "inexpensive"?

Because the hardware is of much lower value.

[Hatchetforce]

You might want to examine Zoot's title remarks in the light of PC gaming. Technically I can get a Gameboy cheaper but it isn't going to run PC titles. If you look at other current handheld PC game devices, then the reality of his opening comment sinks in. Consider the Aya Neo or the GPD for price point comparison.

[Ender]

I think you are forgetting to factor in that these are PCs. Nintendo sells at near cost too but has to have major updates each full generation ( i.e. not the oled update). And they are your only option for a Nintendo handheld. Deck competitors may not have alternatives this generation unless they are already working on them, but next generation will be able to recreate this on cheaper hardware ( then charge more for increase storage, update graphics card, etc ). This may be the cheapest full product line we see, but if this is successful we will almost certainly see a deck equivalent of a budget gaming PC from other companies in the future.

[Zoot]

Originally posted by Ender:

This may be the cheapest full product line we see, but if this is successful we will almost certainly see a deck equivalent of a budget gaming PC from other companies in the future.

Right, but again a "budget PC" is usually not cheap when you look at what you actually get. In the Steam Deck, at least in the cheapest model, you get a lot of "bang for the buck". I don't see any other manufacturers that would want to make such a good offering that they are likely losing money on it. It's not in a normal company's interest. Valve only does it because they want to kickstart the space for handheld PC gaming - but you can only kickstart it once (well, assuming it's successful).

[Briggs]

I think if you changed the assertion from "handheld" to "handheld PC", there would be no room for arguing. As it is, there are cheaper handhelds, and though it's true their hardware can't compare to the Deck's, it's also true that their target software is less demanding.

I'd also like to throw in that if this were a sold as a budget gaming laptop, I'd also say that it's a good deal. The hardware might not be powerful enough to push 1080p@60fps for modern games, but for $400 you're still getting a massive amount of stuff.

And I'd like to point out the controller hardware itself is likely "worth" $60. I wordered the $650 model, and though I might not be getting it for a song like I would be for the $400 model, I can't help but step away feeling like I'm getting an excellent deal.

[Zoot]

Originally posted by Briggs:

I think if you changed the assertion from "handheld" to "handheld PC", there would be no room for arguing. As it is, there are cheaper handhelds, and though it's true their hardware can't compare to the Deck's, it's also true that their target software is less demanding.

I did think it was obvious from the context that I meant handheld PC, but I was wrong.

[Ender]

Originally posted by Zoot:

Originally posted by Ender:

This may be the cheapest full product line we see, but if this is successful we will almost certainly see a deck equivalent of a budget gaming PC from other companies in the future.

Right, but again a "budget PC" is usually not cheap when you look at what you actually get. In the Steam Deck, at least in the cheapest model, you get a lot of "bang for the buck". I don't see any other manufacturers that would want to make such a good offering that they are likely losing money on it. It's not in a normal company's interest. Valve only does it because they want to kickstart the space for handheld PC gaming - but you can only kickstart it once (well, assuming it's successful).

Ahh, I see where you are coming from. Yeah, it would really take someone else trying to become the "new" pc handheld of choice to see it sold this close to cost, though I wouldn't be surprised if Valve does more than one iteration at this price point. They have a bigger interest in making PC handhelds a new market space than in making money off the hardware from it (since they dominate the software portion), so it's not crazy to think they will prioritize expanding the market next iteration over making money from the hardware.

[FatStupidAmericant]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R1DoxviIKY

forgetting about knockoff handhelds smh

[FatStupidAmericant]

In terms of the PC handheld market the deck's the cheapest, and also potentially the most powerful as well.

The switch is obviously cheaper, yeah, no way you can deny that, however it's its own system. It can't run an entire 64 bit OS like the Neo, GPD, or Deck can.

[Briggs]

Originally posted by Zoot:

Originally posted by Briggs:

I think if you changed the assertion from "handheld" to "handheld PC", there would be no room for arguing. As it is, there are cheaper handhelds, and though it's true their hardware can't compare to the Deck's, it's also true that their target software is less demanding.

I did think it was obvious from the context that I meant handheld PC, but I was wrong.

The thing is, though Valve keeps saying "it's a PC, it's a PC..." it's inevitably being compared to consoles. Which, in my opinion, is for the best. I think if consumers go into their first Gabe Gear experience with a "PC Master Race" mindset, they'll be disappointed.

Honestly, though the under the hood (the part I care about) is a PC, until you hook it up to a monitor or SSH into it, it's a console experience. Personally, I think that's the way it should be. And if so, then it needs to be thought of as a handheld and not a PC.

(Again, when I saw this my first thought was it would make for a cheap Linux mobile PC for me to work on which could also double as a gaming device. But I don't think I'm the typical user. For that matter, I don't think most of the regular posters here qualify as the typical user.)

[@R+5]

i wouldnt call it "inexpensive", but "affordable": anyone willing to spend 300 usd to buy a nintendo switch + games, should easily afford the basic version of steam deck + games (often cheaper through sales, and in a lot of cases, people already own a few).

What is "painful" for valve is that they are offering the basic version for a lower price vs actual cost of production. the basic version acts as bait. its cheap in relation to the quality of the hardware, but not much in relation to other "handheld consoles" (if you ignore the "hidden" cost of games and accessories), or even the cost for repairing if it breaks in an accident.

[Briggs]

Originally posted by @R+5:

i wouldnt call it "inexpensive", but "affordable": anyone willing to spend 300 usd to buy a nintendo switch + games, should easily afford the basic version of steam deck + games (often cheaper through sales, and in a lot of cases, people already own a few).

What is "painful" for valve is that they are offering the basic version for a lower price vs actual cost of production. the basic version acts as bait. its cheap in relation to the quality of the hardware, but not much in relation to other "handheld consoles" (if you ignore the "hidden" cost of games and accessories).

"Affordable" is relative to the one paying.

I'm not so sure about the "hidden cost of games" for two reasons. First, console makes tack on a hefty surcharge to games sold for their systems. I don't really follow console gaming, but I believe it's a $10 surcharge on top of a percent (which makes Valve's "greedy" 30% seem like nothing, especally considering how much of that money is pumped back into the PC ecosystem). Steam doesn't have that. For that matter, there's nothing preventing users from installing Windows and never giving Valve a dime afterwards. For that matter, they could install Lutris and the Epic Store or GOG galaxy.

I'm not saying that Valve is doing this out of a sence of altruism, but I will say that they very possibly aren't going to come out making any kind of profit.

edit: And it's worth pointing out those console maker fees are just for the right to put the game on the system. That's in addition to any retailer fees.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. It's been a while and it isn't as if I've ever really cared about console gaming.