Steam Hardware
A place to discuss and support all Steam Hardware, including Steam Deck, Steam Machine, Steam Frame, and SteamOS in general.
As Lemmy doesn't have flairs yet, you can use these prefixes to indicate what type of post you have made, eg:
[Flair] My post title
The following is a list of suggested flairs:
[Deck] - Steam Deck related.
[Machine] - Steam Machine related.
[Frame] - Steam Frame related.
[Discussion] - General discussion.
[Help] - A request for help or support.
[News] - News about the deck.
[PSA] - Sharing important information.
[Game] - News / info about a game on the deck.
[Update] - An update to a previous post.
[Meta] - Discussion about this community.
If your post is only relevant to one hardware device (Deck/Machine/Frame/etc) please specify which one as part of the title or by using a device flair.
These are not enforced, but they are encouraged.
Rules:
- Follow the rules of Sopuli
- Posts must be related to Steam Hardware or Steam OS in an obvious way.
- No piracy, there are other communities for that.
- Discussion of emulators are allowed, but no discussion on how to illegally acquire ROMs.
- This is a place of civil discussion, no trolling.
- Have fun.
view the rest of the comments
Selling hardware at a loss when you make it up in subscriptions or sales in that ecosystem is incredibly common.
Sony is a prime example of doing this in the same market, they've sold generations of Playstations at an initial loss knowing games sale and subscriptions would make it up, and then eventually they start making a profit on the hardware as well.
Also, like, I'm not sure it holds up when thinking about FOSS. Is Nextcloud anti competitive against Microsoft because you can self host the software for free?
It is definitely incredibly common, yes. Like I said, the laws are generally not effectively enforced, and they're also intentionally limited. For some reason, we have decided it is totally acceptable to do that when you don't have a recognized monopoly position, which Sony doesn't in that market. It's very particular, it's very specific, and it's very subjective, which is probably a huge part of why they aren't effectively enforced. Also, companies know all the ways to get around the ways the laws are written if they really want to.
We still don't really follow them even when the laws probably do apply though, it's just vestigial at this point. We're supposed to believe the antitrust laws were only meant for those old, bad monopolies like Standard Oil and Ma Bell. We don't really have monopolies like that anymore, all our monopolies are the good kind of monopolies that don't harm society, or they're not monopolies at all, they're coordinating oligopolies that constantly partner with and all own chunks of each other, which means they're also perfectly fine and not any kind of bad monopoly at all.
I didn't write the laws, there are lots of things about them that I think could be vastly improved. But I do agree with their intent, and we shouldn't forget what their intent is, just because our current financial and political environment is not interested in them.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think you're missing some aspect of intent that would be required to make it against the law.
Rivian for example was (is?) selling their cars at a negative gross margin because they couldn't sell them for a profit for years. If you can't sell something at a loss, so many businesses would be breaking the law when they start out, maybe legitimately almost every single business. (edit: your stance would make Rivian be forced to sell cars for prices no one would pay)
If the intent was to destroy another company by doing it, then that could fall under anti-competitive laws. In this case, the intent isn't to destroy other hardware, it would be to help stabalize the ridiculous increase in prices knowing they could make it up in game sales.