this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
37 points (97.4% liked)

PC Gaming

14101 readers
481 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. 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
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
37
The Steam Machine is actually a great prospect — we're just looking at it wrong (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 5 hours ago by Kraiden@piefed.social to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It might not be for you and me, but it justifies its existence pretty well

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 hours ago

I feel like folks are antsy, because it doesn't look revolutionarily different from the original Steam Machines, which flopped back then.
But yeah, there actually is a revolutionary difference, which is that the vast majority of games now do run on the new Steam Machines. This has also already been proven to the public with the Steam Deck.

And I do think there is a market of folks looking at a Steam Deck and thinking they don't need it to be a handheld and would rather have more bang for their buck.

I guess, we will have to see, but I could also imagine the cornered memory market playing into the hands of the Steam Machine, as the better memory efficiency of Linux will let you do more for less.

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 17 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

So I read this article and a lot of people are saying it's likely to be priced out of competitiveness in the console space due to the parts shortages.

I understand why they couldn't sell it at a loss. It's a general purpose computing device, and it would be too easy for a call centre somewhere to buy 100 of them, which would lead to 0 game sales for Valve...

But why couldn't they release it at the stupid $900 price point, but then offer a $100 - $200 Steam voucher along with it? It sidesteps the call centre issue because the hardware is still full price, but they recoup (some) of their costs for those that ACTUALLY want is as a games console

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

But why couldn’t they release it at the stupid $900 price point, but then offer a $100 - $200 Steam voucher along with it?

~~I didn't think about this; actually a good idea to "force" people into buying Steam and getting into the eco system. Really good point.~~

Edit: I just read another reply with a really good point. They could just sell the vouchers, even with a slight discount. So a really good point is beaten by another really good point. :D

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

A $900 price tag would make it cheaper than a ps5 pro after 2 years due to needing ps+. It's likely very attractive vs a next gen console with tiny library as well.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Plus it will be able to play any game I already own on steam on day one!

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think people buying consoles are doing that kind of long term thinking

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 hours ago

Free multiplayer is a pretty good selling point either way.

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 14 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

but then offer a $100 - $200 Steam voucher along with it?

Then the same thing would occur—buyers not interested in using Steam would sell the vouchers or the accounts those vouchers are tied to.

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 8 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So I read this article and a lot of people are saying it's likely to be priced out of competitiveness in the console space due to the parts shortages.

Meh. The parts shortages that everyone is experiencing?

I think this is more a case of what do you consider "competition"? Rivian doesn't compete with Ford - and Valve doesn't compete with Microsoft/Sony who outsell Valve 20 to 1.

Perhaps the new Xbox is a signal that Microsoft is scared of Valve and Valve is on to something, but I dont think the Steam Machine needs to be competitive in price to the Xbox to be a success.

"Project Helix will lead in performance and play your Xbox and PC games. Looking forward to chatting about this more with partners and studios at my first GDC next week!"

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Valve doesn’t compete with Microsoft/Sony

That's exactly what the article is suggesting they're doing though, and it certainly makes more sense to compete in that space than in the PC gaming market.

Not to mention there's speculation that this is why Sony are pulling out of the PC market. Because Steam Machine is aimed at living rooms, which is their domain. Obviously, no idea if there's any truth to that, but it's an interesting thought