• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      ? 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.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          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.