Steam deck version differences

[GuudBooi]

Hello, planning to buy one and wanted to discuss with people about each version differences.

Basically i am planning to go either for the middle option, 256gb or the last one 512 gb, but after reading some comments i am not totally sure what to pick.
Basically i would go for the last option for the anti-glare version, i don't plan to play outside (yikes) but don't want a bad feeling while playing with lights on, but i am wondering is if the anti-glaire works that much and really make the experience better, also i am afraid, reading from other comments, that playing at night will be worse with anti glare and i don' t want to lose sharpness, also does the anti glaire screen make the screen "more easily to break"?

What you guys think and what option you guys reserved?

[ShelLuser]

I wouldn't go for anti-glare myself, screens have gone through tons of optimization and improvements and the glossy screens of old are hardly as bad as they used to be anymore. So no, I wouldn't go for the screen alone; the price seems too steep for that to me.

My main concern was storage, but considering that the titles I intend to play don't gobble up that much space and because external storage can also be used I settled with the 256Gb version. It can hold one or two of my AAA games and then has room to spare for smaller games (and possible screenshots (?)).

[Andrius227]

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

I wouldn't go for anti-glare myself, screens have gone through tons of optimization and improvements and the glossy screens of old are hardly as bad as they used to be anymore. So no, I wouldn't go for the screen alone; the price seems too steep for that to me.

My main concern was storage, but considering that the titles I intend to play don't gobble up that much space and because external storage can also be used I settled with the 256Gb version. It can hold one or two of my AAA games and then has room to spare for smaller games (and possible screenshots (?)).

People are forgetting sd cards. Get a couple of 1tb sd cards and carry your entire game library with you.

[Sazzouu]

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Get a couple of 1tb sd cards and carry your entire game library with you.

Because gaming off SD-cards never was a bad idea or anything. Have fun draining your battery entirely on loading up GTA5

Not to mention asset-heavy games such as Battlefield that pretty much load up assets constantly.

[Andrius227]

Originally posted by Sazzouu:

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Get a couple of 1tb sd cards and carry your entire game library with you.

Because gaming off SD-cards never was a bad idea or anything. Have fun draining your battery entirely on loading up GTA5

Not to mention asset-heavy games such as Battlefield that pretty much load up assets constantly.

Sd cards may not be fast, but they beat hard drives. No seeking times on sd cards.

And there are plenty of videos showing games running from sd cards just fine.

[Sazzouu]

Originally posted by Andrius227:

And there are plenty of videos showing games running from sd cards just fine.

... besides huge games (e.g. GTA5) and asset heavy games (e.g. Battlefield). Of course you can run plenty of games just fine. Yet still SD cards are not designed for constant heavy load. They are designed for quick reads / writes of small data (e.g. photography)

Didn't watch the video because I already know the result basically because it's physically obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efD2wAfhXrU

PS: I am not saying it is impossible. Infact most games showcased on Steam Decks so far were running off SD-cards. Yet still the point stand valid... SD-cards are not designed for such loads