The Steam Machine did not sell well, however it gave Steam the bandwidth to work on Proton and SteamOS which ultimately lead to the deck, that did not flop.
Might I interest you in the much lesser well known Steam Link? Also a Desktop-Console-type device. It gave Valve the experience to give us the ability to Stream games to other computers on the network via Steam, thus saving distributed space.
Or the Steam Controller, which is also referenced in the article? They learned lessons and fixed the problems with it for the Deck control scheme, which is now being used to create a better product.
Or the Valve Index, which is also referenced in the article? They learned many lessons by using this as a test bed, that allowed them to make the Steam Frame.
All you have done in this entire thread is indicate that you don’t understand iterative development, and that a company would be willing to make mistakes to learn from them and improve.
I think it will bring Valve to dominating the console market in their class, a concept that you should be well familiar with, given your clear explanations of how like things should be compared.
Will it outsell the Ps5? Probably not on release, no. Will it be better than the Ps5? Probably, if only because it has broader flexibility.
Will the Steam Box outsell the Atari VCS, Evercade, and Polymega? Almost certainly, but hey, I’m only trying to compare like to like.
Will the Steam Frame outsell the Meta Quest 3 and the HTC XR and Vive Focus? It definitely has the potential to be super competitive if not on top.
Will the Steam Controller be the dominate PC-Console type controller? Maybe, the memory of the Old Steam controller is going to die hard and slowly.
Not in it’s actual class, no. It’s going to be far more powerful and useful than the VCS, Evercade, and Polymega. With a fairly low count to compete against looking at Steam Deck sales.
Against the Console giants? Maybe, but it entirely depends on markets and like products. Something you have been so keen to point out. That said, it will absolutely have more computing flexibility than any of the big console makers, it’s the only one compliant out of the gate with the EU Rights and Cybersecurity Resilience acts. Moreover given that there are There are 135 million Monthly users of the Steam services, 123 million on Playstation Network, it’s going to prove that a consumer console company with more users than the Playstation Network has the ability to comply with these regulations.
In at least that metric they’re already doing better than Playstation is. So, I’d say too early to call definitively, however not too early to say it’s going to do better in at least several metrics.
Win the console generation? In terms of computing flexibility, having a console that does more than play a walled garden’s worth of games, and actually contributes to competitiveness in a market dominated by players who are intent on making each of themselves a monopoly? Yes, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. The same way Valve “won” the handheld PC market, Volvo “won” the automotive safety market, and Johannes Salk “won” the vaccination market by not patenting the Polio vaccine.
I consider that “winning”, but my outlook on what is good for an ecosystem and market is built on the principles of true market economics, growth potential, benefit to all consumers (not just those who purchase a specific product), and having computing devices that aren’t abysmally stuck in one mode despite having a substantial amount of power that could be used for other things.
Will it have the most sales? Probably not, but having the most sales generally means you sacrificed some morals here and there, and Valve doesn’t have a tendency to do that.
If you look here, you’ll find the answer to your question. I actually answered two different questions here, both of which will tell you my opinion on if it is too soon to speak on the matter. Given that I spoke on the matter.
Win the console generation? In terms of computing flexibility, having a console that does more than play a walled garden’s worth of games, and actually contributes to competitiveness in a market dominated by players who are intent on making each of themselves a monopoly? Yes, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. The same way Valve “won” the handheld PC market, Volvo “won” the automotive safety market, and Johannes Salk “won” the vaccination market by not patenting the Polio vaccine.
I consider that “winning”, but my outlook on what is good for an ecosystem and market is built on the principles of true market economics, growth potential, benefit to all consumers (not just those who purchase a specific product), and having computing devices that aren’t abysmally stuck in one mode despite having a substantial amount of power that could be used for other things.
Will it have the most sales? Probably not, but having the most sales generally means you sacrificed some morals here and there, and Valve doesn’t have a tendency to do that.
The Steam Machine did not sell well, however it gave Steam the bandwidth to work on Proton and SteamOS which ultimately lead to the deck, that did not flop.
Might I interest you in the much lesser well known Steam Link? Also a Desktop-Console-type device. It gave Valve the experience to give us the ability to Stream games to other computers on the network via Steam, thus saving distributed space.
Or the Steam Controller, which is also referenced in the article? They learned lessons and fixed the problems with it for the Deck control scheme, which is now being used to create a better product.
Or the Valve Index, which is also referenced in the article? They learned many lessons by using this as a test bed, that allowed them to make the Steam Frame.
All you have done in this entire thread is indicate that you don’t understand iterative development, and that a company would be willing to make mistakes to learn from them and improve.
So do you think that it’s a guarantee that the new Steam product will dominate the console system and do more sales than the Ps5, for example?
I think it will bring Valve to dominating the console market in their class, a concept that you should be well familiar with, given your clear explanations of how like things should be compared.
Will it outsell the Ps5? Probably not on release, no. Will it be better than the Ps5? Probably, if only because it has broader flexibility.
Will the Steam Box outsell the Atari VCS, Evercade, and Polymega? Almost certainly, but hey, I’m only trying to compare like to like.
Will the Steam Frame outsell the Meta Quest 3 and the HTC XR and Vive Focus? It definitely has the potential to be super competitive if not on top.
Will the Steam Controller be the dominate PC-Console type controller? Maybe, the memory of the Old Steam controller is going to die hard and slowly.
So, you think it’s too soon to call it then?
Not in it’s actual class, no. It’s going to be far more powerful and useful than the VCS, Evercade, and Polymega. With a fairly low count to compete against looking at Steam Deck sales.
Against the Console giants? Maybe, but it entirely depends on markets and like products. Something you have been so keen to point out. That said, it will absolutely have more computing flexibility than any of the big console makers, it’s the only one compliant out of the gate with the EU Rights and Cybersecurity Resilience acts. Moreover given that there are There are 135 million Monthly users of the Steam services, 123 million on Playstation Network, it’s going to prove that a consumer console company with more users than the Playstation Network has the ability to comply with these regulations.
In at least that metric they’re already doing better than Playstation is. So, I’d say too early to call definitively, however not too early to say it’s going to do better in at least several metrics.
So, do you think it is a guarantee that valve is going to “win a console generation” with this specific unreleased product?
Or do you think perhaps it is too soon to be making that kind of statement?
Oh, cool, we have defined goals now.
Win the console generation? In terms of computing flexibility, having a console that does more than play a walled garden’s worth of games, and actually contributes to competitiveness in a market dominated by players who are intent on making each of themselves a monopoly? Yes, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. The same way Valve “won” the handheld PC market, Volvo “won” the automotive safety market, and Johannes Salk “won” the vaccination market by not patenting the Polio vaccine.
I consider that “winning”, but my outlook on what is good for an ecosystem and market is built on the principles of true market economics, growth potential, benefit to all consumers (not just those who purchase a specific product), and having computing devices that aren’t abysmally stuck in one mode despite having a substantial amount of power that could be used for other things.
Will it have the most sales? Probably not, but having the most sales generally means you sacrificed some morals here and there, and Valve doesn’t have a tendency to do that.
So, back to the original question…. The article said it was “about to win,” which I assume means it will win upon release.
It seems a lot of people are getting a bit fussy with me saying it’s too soon to say that.
So you think it’s not too soon to say it? Having not seen it, or how it performs, or how the sales go?
If you look here, you’ll find the answer to your question. I actually answered two different questions here, both of which will tell you my opinion on if it is too soon to speak on the matter. Given that I spoke on the matter.