Valve didn’t prove Steam Machines, didn’t really market them, and game support wasn’t there, they just launched it with a promise to fix stuff.
They did the opposite with the Steam Deck, they proved the concept with their own hardware, they marketed them heavily, and they had a ton of games ready to go at launch.
They learned from the mistakes made with the Steam Machine.
I don’t think that was the real issue though. People didn’t want it because a ton of games didn’t work, manufacturers weren’t excited because there wasn’t an existing market, and Valve wasn’t really invested. They basically tried to pawn most of the risk off onto hardware manufacturers.
The Steam Deck took the opposite direction, they invested themselves in pushing hardware, which meant they had more incentive to get games to be compatible, and the result is creating a market that other manufacturers could actually quantify. They took pretty much all of the risk themselves, and later manufacturers decided to jump on board.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Same mistakes as the Steam Machines
? How so?
Valve didn’t prove Steam Machines, didn’t really market them, and game support wasn’t there, they just launched it with a promise to fix stuff.
They did the opposite with the Steam Deck, they proved the concept with their own hardware, they marketed them heavily, and they had a ton of games ready to go at launch.
They learned from the mistakes made with the Steam Machine.
The SD success is that there is one to buy in turn having only 1 to develop for
SM failure was that they all had different specs/price points
I don’t think that was the real issue though. People didn’t want it because a ton of games didn’t work, manufacturers weren’t excited because there wasn’t an existing market, and Valve wasn’t really invested. They basically tried to pawn most of the risk off onto hardware manufacturers.
The Steam Deck took the opposite direction, they invested themselves in pushing hardware, which meant they had more incentive to get games to be compatible, and the result is creating a market that other manufacturers could actually quantify. They took pretty much all of the risk themselves, and later manufacturers decided to jump on board.