this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
21 points (83.9% liked)

Gaming

4885 readers
106 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!


Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:


If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

They were definitely selling at a huge loss with the original prices

No they weren't. There is literally 0 proof of that. Quit spreading misinformation

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

There is absolutely no way that 350€ was not a loss for them. The also basically said that indirectly. And if you include all the software dev work that goes into the platform it gets even more cost intensive for them.

https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/gabe-newell-says-steam-decks-aggressive-pricing-painful-but-critical-2995253

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

"Painful" could easily (and mostly likely) refer to extremely low profit margins that would take several years to pay off the development costs. And that quote specifically refers to the base 64GB version. The price difference between that and the 256GB version was way more than the increase in storage costs, despite that being the only difference.

Also, I absolutely knew you were going to reply with this quote despite it not being evidence. Congrats on being extremely predictable.

[–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago

It never sold at 350€, it started at 350£/400€ at launch for the 64bg LCD. The price point being painful does not mean they sell at loss.