57
The Steam Machine is actually a great prospect — we're just looking at it wrong
(www.xda-developers.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
57 points (98.3% liked)
PC Gaming
14101 readers
453 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Then the same thing would occur—buyers not interested in using Steam would sell the vouchers or the accounts those vouchers are tied to.
The Index came with a free copy of Alyx
Beyond initial development costs, it didn't cost Valve anything to ship the Index with Alyx though. Bundling in a $200 voucher would be increasing the system price by $160 in direct cost to Valve for no reason, as consumers are likely to spend that after purchasing the system, but might be dissuaded by a high initial purchase price.
A more apt comparison in that scenario would be Valve bundling their entire software library with the Steam Machine, or developing a new game to bundle with it as a means of adding value.
And? The problem is steam not being able to sell the console at a loss. The hypothetical call centre is welcome to sell the vouchers. They've still paid full price for the machine. This makes it a much more enticing prospect for people that actually want to game on it though, and so long as the bundled voucher eventually gets used, why would it matter that it's not the person that bought the hardware?
ETA: Also, if the voucher doesn't get used at all, Valve win entirely
Because Valve would have to pay out 70% the value of the vouchers to developers in game redemptions; the break even point would therefore need to account for that amount being subtracted first (i.e. for $900 including a $200 voucher, $760).
At that point, Valve would likely have higher sales if they didn't include the voucher and reduced the price by the 70% in voucher value it would have cost them otherwise.
Yes, they would.
This is about competing in the console space though, where eating some of the cost of the hardware is a common practice on the gamble that the more consoles you sell, the more you make in game sales.
The problem for Valve is that they're selling something that could be used as a general computing device which means that there's no guarantee that they'd recoup the cost in game sales.
This is a sort of middle ground. I understand what I think you're saying, that if someone buys the console, and sells the voucher, Valve only stand to recoup $60 with no further game sales...
But on the flip side, that's a lot of extra bs for a call centre IT department to have go through to list and sell a hundred plus vouchers, if they even manage to sell them. It could happen, but it's far less appealing than a nice cheap workstation for $700. Any they can't sell before the vouchers expire is a machine they've paid full price for. It makes it a much riskier and more burdensome prospect.
On the consumer side, someone weighing up a $500 playstation and a $900 steam machine is more likely to seriously consider the steam machine if they get $200 of that back in games