• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 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
      ·
      21 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
        ·
        21 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.